In reading the article on Feb. 23 quoting city attorney Richard Ronning and me at the Feb. 19 Willmar City Council meeting, you would think that everything is OK as is.
This is very wrong, as pointed out by the following facts.
1. "...Said he informed commission members of their obligation, but they decided not to meet." Why didn't he inform them of statute 410.05 discharge?
2. About not meeting, Ronning said, "I really don't blame them." So does he mean that state statutes aren't to be obeyed?
3. Why hasn't the city of Willmar adhered to the law for statutory cities enforcing Statute 410 of the Minnesota Code?
ADVERTISEMENT
4. Ronning said, "What does the chief judge of the district who is now seated in Montevideo really care about a report from the Charter Commission in the city of Willmar?" Probably nothing, but it is the law and their job.
5. Ronning also stated, "What's the point of meeting if there's nothing to meet about?" Who is Ronning to say that they have nothing to meet about? They are an independent commission and I think should be able to think on their own. I don't think five or 10 minutes out of anyone's time is going to cause an upheaval in their lives, if no revisions are necessary.
6. Most importantly, Ronning asserts that the "current limit of two consecutive three-year terms does not preclude reappointment after a one-year hiatus." This is true of council members under the City Charter Article II City Council Section 2.04. But not for municipal utilities commissions or hospital boards under Article IV Boards and Commissions Section 4.04 and 4.05. They contain a very important word: "shall." Other cities, namely Hutchinson, have the proper wording for their utility and hospital boards
7. Ronning's last comment, "People need to get off and take a break," in my opinion has no relevance within this topic.
I will address why we need to have a Charter Commission in a later letter.
