Laserfiche WebLink
i —XMMffjD p) - * - 4 <br />n4j41.,*j[----- <br />redi j Q 6poori <br />%*-jjj w, jp pt <br />1i <br />is The Council, at its J'uly 23 meeting, adopted a resolution <br />approving a Cod,le of Ethics. for Public Officials 'in the City <br />of' Roseville,. At the meeting, the Council requested the <br />sta,ff to review two possible changes to the Code, <br />Atitiached iz a letter from the City Attorney responding to <br />the two requests.1 In summary, 'Olt, 'is the Attorney*s opinion <br />that adding the word signiticiant would' make the section <br />ambil"guousi and would provide a loophole in the Ethics Code, <br />G <br />it, is also the Attorneyls opinion that the Council does not <br />W <br />1--i,ave jiurisidict, ion over candidates for of f ice. The ir conducl, <br />covered by M innesotia Statuties, <br />Based, on the, Attorney"s opinion, it is recominended--the Ethics <br />Code remain as approvied, <br />Ui. The, Code Provides for the appointment of an Ethics Commis <br />sloin by the City Council. The Commission would include <br />three persons: two Roseville residents and one nonresident, <br />41 9 M1 <br />it is appropriate for the Council to determine the appoint- <br />ment process they desire to use.i Currently for all advisory <br />commissiLonsf all oplenings are advertised in the paper and <br />9 <br />applica,nts-are interviewed by 'the Council. 'This same proces <br />could be used for the two Roseville resideTts, I <br />