My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0312
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2012 3:12:47 PM
Creation date
3/22/2012 3:12:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/12/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, March 12,2012 <br /> Page 9 <br /> action to take, Councilmember Pust advised that she needed more information <br /> from those individuals. <br /> Mayor Roe noted the differences in appointment to the HRA by Mayor; and ad- <br /> vised he would need to review State Statutes and HRA by-laws to determine the <br /> process proscribed for sanctions. Regarding failure for filing of other commis- <br /> sioners, Mayor Roe questioned what was appropriate for disciplinary action based <br /> on the silence of the Ethics Code specific to this failure. <br /> City Manager Malinen opined that on the part of staff, they had been diligent in <br /> giving the individuals advanced notice of their obligations, as well as subsequent <br /> staff follow-up to remind them of their responsibilities and the date for them to <br /> comply. <br /> Councilmember McGehee suggested that the Ethics Commission may need to <br /> provide additional information and a process for the City Council to handle this <br /> situation. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that she was not prepared to assume that the individ- <br /> uals were refusing to comply; but if that was the case, that would dictate the City <br /> Council's code of follow-through; however, she further opined that such infor- <br /> mation was needed to confirm individual rationale in not filing, or if there was <br /> any confusion of those individuals in thinking they had filed. <br /> City Manager Malinen opined that based on staff contact to-date, none of the in- <br /> dividuals had filed to staff's knowledge. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that circumstances were different if individuals re- <br /> fused to file versus they had yet to get it done. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned the preferred action of the City Council and whether a new <br /> deadline should apply. <br /> Since there is nothing written as a sanction in the Ethics Code, Councilmember <br /> Pust suggested that staff pursue individual explanations from those individuals be- <br /> tween now and future action. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred, suggesting staff to add this as a action item on the March <br /> 26, 2012 City Council business agenda, with individuals required by then to either <br /> file by then or submit their rationale for not doing so. Mayor Roe suggested that <br /> Mr. Campbell had a legitimate reason for not filing even though that may pre- <br /> clude him from certain activities relative to police service. Mayor Roe suggested <br /> that the City Council further review the current Ethics Code and discuss how to <br /> move forward based on the apparently glaringly absent sanction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.