Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.03.03 Special Council Minutes SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 3, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:00 p.m. Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Jeff Krueger, Jen Morical, Loren Schulz, Judy Teporten, Marilyn Speiker, Souheil, Melly and Zack Ailabouni, Madeline Bader, Charlie Seivert, Greg Eppich, David Pritzlaff, Jim McGrath, Jim and Mary Jo Bell, Tom Jensen, Ron Thelen, Barb and Scott Thompson, Don Salverda, Randy Oswald, Peggy Johnson, Lori Classon, Colleen Stewart, Michael Armbrust, Gerald Henricks, Tim Kiniwski, Bob Brownawell, Bev Orr, Tim Pietsch, Paul Hardt, Phil Traxler, Kevin Letton, Greg and Chintana Ohl, Julie McKnight, Debbie and Terry Donnelly, Craig Stibbe, Bob and Chris Heman, Michael Dow, Elayne Donnelly, Bob Donnelly Jr., Bruce Alexander, Michelle Wood, Anthony Pena, Mark and Amy Pellicci, Cheryl Retterath, George and Sharon Flynn, Pam and Vern Schoolmeester, Ed P., Bob Curtis, Mary Ann and John Devney, Karen Finstuen, Jackie Dooley, Heidi Schmidt, John Kapustka 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to approve the agenda including items 5a and 5b. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Termination of City Administrator's Contract by Accepting Resignation Mr. Jeff Krueger, 5324 186th Street, stated he would like to offer citizen comments for the rest of the people. He felt this does directly affect the citizens. Mayor Ristow asked Mr. Krueger to sit down and he will call on him. Mr. Krueger asked ifthere would be citizen comments. Mayor Ristow replied no, there is no citizen comments. There was a loud Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3,2003 Page 2 outburst from the audience. Mr. Krueger continued, saying back in 1996 when Mayor Ristow ran for Mayor, he said "I will always listen to what the people have to say. I believe it is important that we not only inform people, but also really listen to what they have to say. Then and only then can all issues be evaluated before any decisions are made." Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Krueger is out of order and asked him to please sit down. Police Chief Siebenaler stopped Mr. Krueger, saying ladies and gentlemen please, under the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the city of Farmington, the Mayor has a right to direct and control this meeting. He has a right under the law to limit public input and to curtail outbursts. The audience asked, to limit it or to deny it completely? Chief Siebenaler replied limit it as he sees fit. The audience stated which means to deny it completely. Chief Siebenaler continued saying it is the Mayor's position to direct the meeting. He understood their frustration with this process. He respected their right to freedom of assembly and their freedom of speech. However, he is not permitted to allow those freedoms to interfere with the legal process. Expression of your individual rights may not infringe upon the rights of another. In this particular case, the Mayor's right to direct this meeting. He is acting in a legal fashion. Inside this meeting, the Mayor is in charge. As this meeting continues, please remember your frustration is not with my officers or myself, but we are responsible for keeping the peace. We will be doing that. It is our job. Please do not force us to take any action against you by escorting you out of this meeting, or worse. You may not like what is happening, but I am asking you to control your frustration. I am asking you not to put my officers or I in a position of having to detain or arrest residents ofthis city during this legal proceeding. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to accept public comment. Mayor Ristow stated he never said we would not have citizen comments, but some people would not give me a chance to start the meeting. There was another outburst from the audience. Voting for: Fogarty, Soderberg, Ristow. Voting against: Cordes, Fitch. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow stated he is going to try to be fair. He hoped the audience would pick a spokesperson to talk. He would not take any public attacks and comments will be limited to 2 minutes. Citizens can say their piece, but regarding the item we are discussing, the City Administrator did resign. This is data privacy. Things cannot be said or answered by any of us. If you want to put on an attack that is fine, but he will not accept it. He will call upon the residents if they raise their hand. He asked the audience to please let him finish what he started. City Attorney Jamnik recommended the Separation Agreement be reviewed and allow comments after that. That could establish the framework for some of the discussion. Mayor Ristow replied that is Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3,2003 Page 3 where he was going before he was so rudely interrupted. Attorney Jamnik continued stating at Mr. Shukle's request and with Mayor Ristow's consent, he has negotiated over the last several days with Mr. Shukle's attorney regarding a possible Separation Agreement. Attorney Jamnik apologized to Council and the public for not being able to distribute the document sooner. However, he is constrained by data practices, open meetings law, and public employment laws ofthe state which make it very difficult to distribute these documents before they are ready for formal review. He distributed a few unsigned copies of the agreement for the audience to review. The proposed Separation Agreement provides in paragraph 1 that Mr. Shukle would offer, and the city would accept, a resignation of his employment with the city effective July 3, 2003. Paragraph 2 provides consistent with his pre-existing professional services contract with the city that upon separation, Mr. Shukle would receive the equivalent of six months' salary which is $47,625. 35. That would be received in normal payments and is consistent with his existing professional services agreement. Paragraph 3 provides for the continuation of city contributions to health, life, dental and disability premiums at the current rate through June 30, 2004, or until such earlier date if Mr. Shukle secures re-employment by another jurisdiction and receives their coverage, then the city's obligation would cease. This is an addition beyond statute of six months coverage in this particular type of situation. Paragraph 4 would provide compensation for his unused vacation and sick leave. Regarding the difference between existing city policy regarding sick leave, this provides a little additional sick leave payment. He would not normally vest for full reimbursement of sick leave until he receives 5 years of service and he only has two. So we are advancing that partially. Paragraph 5 states the city agrees to pay $7,000 to compensate him for costs incurred to obtain employment. Paragraph 6 proposes to compensate Mr. Shukle for attorney expenses in the amount of$1500. Paragraph 7 provides for Exhibit A, a letter to be drafted by Mayor Ristow acceptable by Mr. Shukle for a letter of reference. That letter has been drafted, approved and signed. Copies will be made available and will be retained by the city and will be placed in the personnel record. This letter has been approved by Mr. Shukle and Mayor Ristow. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 4 Paragraph 8 provides that the city would not oppose a claim for re- employment compensation filed by Mr. Shukle as a result oftermination of his employment. This is a standard provision in separation agreements dealing with the state statute where eligibility is dependent on voluntary quits vs terminations, layoffs, etc. This is not covered in his existing agreement but is standard for employment separation agreements. Paragraph 9 is also standard for employment separation agreements, but is very important. It is a non-disparagement provision which says the city and Mr. Shukle agree to end the employment in a respectful manner. The city and Mr. Shukle each agree that they would not make any disparaging remarks or statements regarding the other party. The parties agree that in the event that this paragraph is violated, damages could be awarded to the other party in the amount of up to $10,000 for each disparaging statement. Attorney J amnik cautioned Council that these types of provisions are very important in the sense that what you deem to be disparaging or non- disparaging may not be interpreted the same way by the person you are making the comments about. He asked caution on the part of all the parties to refrain from statements that could be interpreted by the other side as disparaging or disrespectful. Paragraph 10 provides no admission of liability on the part of either party. Paragraph 11 agrees on indemnification of Mr. Shukle ifthere are any third party claims or lawsuits that are still pending or could be levied against him, that by severing the relationship, any decisions he made would still be protected by the city on any kind of development, personnel, or any other type of issue he took prior to this Separation Agreement. Mayor Ristow asked for how long? Attorney Jamnik replied any decision Mr. Shukle made up until today the city will stand behind it. If someone filed a criminal charge or civil charge, which is not anticipated, the city agrees they would cover him as ifhe were still an employee. This is a standard provision in the Separation Agreement. Paragraph 12, the data practices act indicates that pursuant to the statute that the Separation Agreement would become public data. Paragraph 13, is also a standard required provision that the parties be offered a 15-day rescission period. If either party is not comfortable with the Separation Agreement, they can rescind it. Paragraph 14 is also standard indicating the agreement is governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. Paragraph 15 is also standard indicating this is the complete agreement with the attached reference letter and there are no secondary agreements. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 5 Paragraph 16 is a full release by Mr. Shukle for any claims and is the consideration by him for the additional compensation over and above that provided in his pre-existing professional services agreement. Councilmember Fogarty asked if provisions 3, 4,5,6 and 7 are the only ones not standard, everything else is standard in a Separation Agreement? Attorney Jamnik replied paragraph 2 is not necessarily standard, it is part of Mr. Shukle's existing professional services agreement so it would be consistent with the existing agreement. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the standard provisions. The letter of reference depends on the letter of reference. The rest of the document from paragraphs 8-16 is standard. The document has been reviewed, approved and signed by Mr. Shukle. Mayor Ristow stated we have a motion and a second to approve the Separation Agreement. Councilmember Fogarty stated it is her intention to abstain from this vote. When she first received news last night that this is what would happen today, her instant reaction was if Mr. Shukle agrees to it, then she is comfortable with it. But she was thinking with her heart. She thought with her head about what has unfolded this week. She received a lot of e-mails and phone calls, all of which the questions were, "What can we do to stop this?" and "Why did this happen in such short order?" There is a regularly scheduled Council Meeting on Monday and why an emergency meeting? What happened? She could not answer that question for people. She attempted to get those answers just for herself and she couldn't. A part of this provision makes it so that no one is ever going to have to answer that question. They can't. They won't be able to answer that question. It will have to stay a dead issue. There is a rule of 100 when it comes to politics. For every phone call you receive, you have to think 100 people out there are thinking the same thing and just haven't picked up the phone. With that on her mind, she has heard from thousands of residents and they are not happy about it. She can't in good conscience, knowing that she feels that this is the wrong thing to do, Mr. Shukle was good for the city, an asset to the city, and she saw no reason for him to be terminated. She cannot in good conscience vote for the separation because she fundamentally disagrees with it, and she thinks the residents fundamentally disagree with it. On the other side, it does release the city from liability, and she does have a fiscal responsibility to the city as well, so she cannot in good conscience vote no on it. She stated she will abstain from this vote. There was loud applause from the audience. Mayor Ristow asked Attorney Jamnik to explain that it was not an emergency meeting. Attorney Jamnik stated the proper classification for this is a special meeting which requires three days posted notice and notice to the special requestors list rather than an emergency meeting which can be called in less than three days notice. Councilmember Fogarty stated Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3,2003 Page 6 she will accept the clarification, but it was short notice. Mayor Ristow stated we do have a clause for emergency meetings. Councilmember Soderberg stated in trying to organize his own thoughts, he thinks this is wrong. He does not like it. He has never supported terminating Mr. Shukle. He does not now support his termination. The Separation Agreement does protect the city and it does help Mr. Shukle in future endeavors. Because it does those two things would be the only reason he would ever vote for it. The loss of Mr. Shukle as our City Administrator is a loss for the entire city. He does not think it is good for the city. Councilmember Soderberg thinks it will put the city back. He thinks it will do damage. Regrettably he will support the Separation Agreement, but it is with a heavy heart that he will support it, and only because it will help Mr. Shukle and it protects the city. Councilmember Cordes and Fitch, and Mayor Ristow did not have any comments. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Soderberg,. Abstain: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Appointment of Interim City Administrator Mayor Ristow distributed an agreement and stated he and Police Chief Siebenaler had a discussion and Chief Siebenaler will take the responsibility up to 11 months. He highly recommended Council appoint Chief Siebenaler as the Interim City Administrator. Police Chief Siebenaler stated the city needs to continue to move forward. This staff and those employees that could not be here tonight intend for this city to move forward. It is in all of our best interest for that to happen. As he has indicated in his agreement, he serves the interest of this city and he will accept this position in the best interest ofthis city. We as a staff will do our level best to work in a direction that benefits all of our residents. Weare committed to that cause and we look for your support in doing that. To the residents, we need your help and your support in doing that as well. No city can run, no entity can run, in opposition to itself or the constituents that it serves. We need your help. Councilmember Soderberg asked Chief Siebenaler ifhe drew up this agreement and ifhe is comfortable with it's provisions? Chief Siebenaler replied yes. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Chief Siebenaler for his professionalism. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to appoint Police Chief Siebenaler as Interim City Administrator. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow then opened the meeting to public comments, reminding the audience no personal attacks and to limit the comments to two minutes. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked why did the Council just complete a retreat with the staff to determine goals for the coming year, and before the ink was dry on those goals, you want to dismiss the primary person who can guide the city to those goals? You paid an outside facilitator and incurred considerable expenses to conduct this retreat. Why? Retreat costs were $2,635. Don't you believe that this proposed action and the way you are trying to carry it out, affects the city staff in a very negative way? A staffthat the public pays to do our work. How can they do their work under the atmosphere you create? Mr. Pritzlaff stated he does not agree with this at all. Some of the money the city will incur such as $20,000 to hire a consultant, would be another issue. Would Council be willing to take some oftheir own personal money to help pay for this? The taxpayers do not want to pay for this. Council has their agenda. There are three people on the Council that he can say with a little assurance, come 2004 they will not be there. His name will be on the ballot and there will be three less people on the Council that don't belong up there. Mr. Jeff Krueger, 5324 186th Street, stated regarding the agreement, $10,000 for the disparaging remarks, is that paid for by the city or the person who makes the disparaging remarks, if that occurs? Attorney J amnik replied state statute requires that if the statement is made within the scope of the official duties ofthe official the city would have to indemnify the official. A lot would depend on the situation. Mr. Krueger stated basically, it would be the residents paying for it. Attorney Jamnik stated if one of the Councilmembers makes the disparaging remark, that is correct. If Mr. Shukle makes the disparaging remark, he would be obligated to pay for it. Mr. Krueger stated he has known Mr. Shukle for quite a while. He considers him a very good friend. You have a great staff, an excellent staff, and he hopes Council knows that. Every single one of them. But the city also had a great leader and all you did was just chop off the head. You have thrown everyone into a tailspin. Mayor Ristow interrupted saying you are not going to tell me what I did. You tell me what you want to say and that's it. Mr. Krueger stated I am telling you exactly what I am saying. Mayor Ristow stated he is not going to sit and listen to that. He gave Mr. Krueger an opportunity to say what he wanted. Mr. Krueger said he is not attacking him. Mayor Ristow said we signed a Separation Agreement. He asked Mr. Krueger if he had anything else to say, and if not to take his seat. Mayor Ristow stated he is not going to sit here and take a pounding from Mr. Krueger. Mr. Krueger stated this is a Separation Agreement. It is not a resignation. It is not voluntary. Mayor Ristow replied, yes it is voluntary. I did not take his hand and make him sign it. It was signed by Mr. Shukle. Mr. Krueger stated this is the equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head. Mayor Ristow told Mr. Krueger to take his seat, he is done. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Jim Bell, 201 Maple Street, stated he hoped he would not offend anyone. He worked for the city for 26 years. We went through this 8 years ago, and he was wondering about the recruitment process. He understood Council would get a firm to recruit as was done in previous years. He hoped that the Council, in their recruitment for a replacement for Mr. Shukle, does not go out and find a guy and determine we will have a hit list like 8 years ago and pick on these staff members. You have a good staff. He knows two of the current Councilmembers were on the Council at that time and he does know there was a hit list. Mr. Bell looked at Councilmember Fitch and stated don't look like that. Mr. Bell overhead Councilmember Fitch at a Mountain Dew meeting talking about the hit list. Mr. Bell was on it. It is not fun. Mr. Bell survived it, but some of his colleagues did not. He hoped Council would not do that again. Mr. Tim Pietsch, 612 Centennial Drive, stated his comments center around the turnover that the city is incurring. As he looks around at surrounding communities, he sees the facilities they have. He looks at Farmington and we are sorely lacking. It discourages him greatly that we have a Council with personal agendas and we incur these costs. Ms. Kim Soderberg, 1312 Fairview Lane, had a question regarding the Separation Agreement and the clause where the agreement can be rescinded by either party in 15 days. She asked what happens if either party decides to that? Is Mr. Shukle fired, or do we have to go through all this again, or what is the course of action for that? Attorney J amnik replied the provision is a statutory requirement that parties in Separation Agreements have a cooling offperiod or an evaluation period that allows them to rescind the agreement. If either party decides to change their mind and back out of the agreement, we would be back to where we were before the agreement is signed. We would have to cross that bridge when we come to it and start negotiations or deal with those issues as presented at that point. The agreement would be ripped up and we would go back in time to earlier today. Mayor Ristow stated the bottom line is, Mr. Shukle would not have signed the agreement ifhe was not willing. Attorney Jamnik stated it is not anticipated, and for the Council to rescind it, we would have to put it back on the agenda, and have a majority vote of the Council to rescind the agreement. Ms. Soderberg stated she felt a big injustice has been done to Mr. Shukle. Mayor Ristow replied you have a right to your opinion. Mr. Charlie Seivert, 19055 Enchanted Way, gave thanks and praise to Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg for representing the interests of the residents of Farmington. He did not know ifthis was going to be the end. He thinks the truth will be revealed. He had the opportunity to get to know Mr. Shukle and he was a quality individual. All that happened here, Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 9 is we have weakened a city, and unfortunately the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the expenses of this. Although Mr. Shukle probably did physically sign the paper, Mr. Seivert wanted to go on record that Mr. Shukle was forced out. Ms. Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Avenue, stated she believed Council complied with the legal requirements of the state statute this week. Given that there was no formal discipline filed, no review done, and no negative comments that the public and certain Councilmembers are aware of, what tookplace is just wrong. The residents do not have any recourse. State statute does not allow for the recall of city officials. She would hope that people interested in pursuing an amendment to the state statute to provide for that would let her know. Ms. Melly Ailabouni, 610 Heritage Way, stated the Council has cost the city about $100,000 when you add up the severance pay, and the insurance and the search for the new Administrator. The residents have not gotten a reason yet why the Council has spent over $100,000 tonight. The people of Farmington deserve to know why you are spending that money that way. Mayor Ristow asked Attorney Jamnik to explain the cost is not $100,000. Attorney Jamnik stated that is difficult to do. Mayor Ristow asked him to explain what the agreement comes to. Attorney Jamnik replied a lot depends. It is under $60,000 in total compensation. The existing employment contract provides for a 6-month severance, which would be $47,000. The difference is approximately $10,000. There would be an additional tenant liability depending on re-employment and those types of factors. On the other side, he has not compensated the fact that during the interim the city will be paying for the interim administrator position and the police chief in conjunction. The Council has not yet been presented with a plan for recruitment and hiring of the replacement. Mr. Michael Dow, 19402 Ellington Trail, stated he has been a resident for almost 9 years. What we have here tonight is a betrayal to the citizens. He thinks the cost of $1 00,000 will be accurate because we have to compensate Chief Siebenaler for the additional duties he will take on. There will be overtime cost for the officers that have to take on some of his duties. The fact that nobody is admitting to anything and nobody is giving an explanation to the citizens, means of the 17,000 plus that live in this town right now, four people really know the reason this whole thing has occurred. The other 17,000 have no idea. He feels the Council has betrayed the citizens, and is very disappointed in the Council. Mr. Zack Ailabouni, 610 Heritage Way, asked why this special meeting was called tonight instead of waiting until the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday? Attorney Jamnik replied the Mayor called the meeting because at this time we have a full Council. Monday night we will be Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 10 absent one Councilmember. It is appropriate to try to address this with a full Council. Mayor Ristow stated negotiations broke off. Addressing Attorney Jamnik, he stated this was started last week and you said there were no more terms, so we called the meeting within the scope ofthe bylaws. Attorney Jamnik stated that is correct, but Monday evening Councilmember Fitch will not be there. There was an outburst from the audience. Councilmember Fogarty stated this meeting was called because Councilmember Fitch is going to be on vacation, so I did not go on vacation tonight, because he is? Mayor Ristow stated that is not the reason. Attorney Jamnik stated he apologized, he did not know. There was another audience outburst. Mayor Ristow stated that is not the reason. He thinks all the residents are respectful enough of data privacy. Mr. Krueger interrupted asking why have a meeting? Mayor Ristow stated do you want to let me talk or do you want me to end the meeting? Mr. Krueger stated why don't you answer the right question? Mayor Ristow stated there were negotiations going on and this did not just happen last week. He asked Attorney Jamnik to tell him ifhe was getting out ofline and stepping into data privacy. This thing has been going on for over a year. There were negotiations before and they broke off. Mr. Krueger stated he thought there was a clean slate in March. Mayor Ristow replied let me finish. Am I talking to you? Are you a spokesperson for these people? Mr. Krueger stated you are looking right at me, so I am answering your question. Mayor Ristow continued saying it has been going on for quite some time. We did clean the slate in February, but we cannot sit here and tell you what goes on internally. There are a lot ofthings that could come out yet, as Attorney J amnik has indicated, and we have to back it. Some of you are employers and have employees and when things are brought to your attention, you know what the data privacy act entails. Mr. Krueger asked can't you tell us what he did wrong? Mayor Ristow replied he is an at-will employee. Mr. Krueger stated Councilmembers Soderberg and Fogarty don't even know what Mr. Shukle did wrong. Why not share the information with the other Councilmembers? Mayor Ristow replied Councilmember Soderberg knows what Mr. Shukle has been up to, but he just has not said it. There was an audience outburst. Mr. Pritzlaff asked if Mayor Ristow was now calling Councilmember Soderberg a liar? Mayor Ristow replied he is not calling anyone a liar, but if Councilmember Soderberg can honestly sit here and say he has not known anything about this until tonight then you can say whatever you want to say. Councilmember Soderberg stated he has known about negotiations and conflicts, but he has asked repeatedly for a cause. He has stated repeatedly he will not support Mr. Shukle's termination without cause. He has asked Mayor Ristow personally for that. He and Councilmember Fitch met after he was appointed, and Councilmember Fitch assured him Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 11 he would not support termination without cause. Councilmember Soderberg has asked Councilmember Fitch for cause and again he has not offered any cause. In fact, Councilmember Fitch told him that the attorney has advised him not to talk to him about it. Councilmember Soderberg's next call was to the attorney. The attorney told him that was not the case. Councilmember Soderberg stated so now he has not only been lied to by Mayor Ristow, but by Councilmember Fitch. Councilmember Fitch stated his conversation with the attorney was that the attorney told him the way to approach this was as an at-will employee, and that he should not discuss any reasons for termination. He told Councilmember Fogarty he would talk to the attorney, which was the same night and that he would get back to her. The next day the attorney told him not to talk to any other Councilmembers. Councilmember Fogarty stated that is not true. Councilmember Fitch replied, he is sorry, but it is true. Councilmember Fogarty stated she called Monday night and asked why and Councilmember Fitch could not tell her why. Councilmember Fitch stated the attorney told him not to discuss it. Councilmember Fogarty stated she asked Councilmember Fitch if the attorney specifically asked him not to discuss it with other Councilmembers because we do have the right to data privacy. Councilmember Fitch replied he told her no, but he would talk to Attorney Jamnik the next day. Mayor Ristow stopped them saying he was not going to let the Council beat each other up. Mayor Ristow then stated if Councilmember Soderberg can honestly sit here and tell everyone of these lies, and I will look everyone in the eyes, that he did not negotiate a contract a year ago from now, then he will call him a liar. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to adjourn at 5:41 p.m. There was an outburst from the audience, saying they should go outside to make their comments. It appears they cannot make their comments freely. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch. Voting against: Fogarty, Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~ /Y7d~ CCynthia Muller Executive Assistant