My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_1206
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_1206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:32:52 AM
Creation date
2/16/2006 1:03:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/6/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/06/04 <br />Minutes - Page 27 <br /> <br />Mr. Beets wanted to make clear, for the record, that city staff had <br />no authority to audit the forms, to subpoena records, or to <br />substantiate information shown on the form; but that it would be <br />handled through a law enforcement process. Mr. Beets reiterated <br />that staff only received and filed forms, and produced them for <br />public access upon request, but that staff did not verify <br />information provided as to its accuracy. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing, as Chair, so noted City Manager Beets' point. <br /> <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn referenced a previous written report he had <br />provided to the City Council at an earlier meeting with his <br />comments related to this matter; and reviewed several areas of <br />concern that he didn't feel the proposed ordinance addressed <br />(i.e., past concerns of council candidates and donors; PAC <br />fundraisers; Councilmembers recusing themselves from voting <br />on issues involving contributors to their campaigns; and <br />committees or special interest groups independent of personal <br />campaign disclosure requirements). <br /> <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the proposed ordinance provided <br />numerous loopholes and questioned what the Council was <br />attempting to correct, or the purpose of the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Dan Roe, 2100 Avon Street <br />Mr. Roe spoke in favor of disclosure; but questioned language in <br />the proposed ordinance related to contributions made in the <br />previous year and how it related to those who had run for the <br />Special Election for the City Council vacancy and those <br />contributions. Mr. Roe opined that he had received requests <br />from some donors making smaller donations that their name not <br />be made public, and he preferred to honor their privacy requests. <br />Mr. Roe further opined that candidates for local office needed to <br />respect citizens who wanted to be involved, but wanted to <br />maintain their privacy, or not divulge their employer. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires noted that Mr. Roe's point and concerns <br />regarding the language related to the aggregate amount received <br />in the previous year was valid. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.