My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0320
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:35:28 AM
Creation date
4/3/2006 10:28:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/20/2006
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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 />The purpose of the 3-member commission is unclear <br /> <br />The purpose behind Mr. Klausing's proposal to create a 3-member commission is <br />unclear. In his report, he admits that the commission will have no powers to <br />address ethics issues. With this in mind, it seems difficult to believe his <br />statement that the existence of a commission will make people take ethics issues <br />more seriously. This would be similar to claiming that the existence of the <br />Roseville Fire Department assures that people will take the dangers of smoking <br />on their sofas seriously. <br /> <br />Mr. Klausing also states that a commission could develop and advance a training <br />curriculum for city employees and officials. The question to be asked is whether <br />we should be hiring professionals to develop training programs, or whether we <br />should have untrained and unqualified citizen volunteers carrying out these <br />duties. I know of no other example in our city where we have done this. There is <br />also the question of whether it is proper for untrained and unqualified citizens to <br />develop a training curriculum for a professionally trained staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Klausing also states that he believes that the City Attorney is better prepared <br />to investigate specific ethics complaints. This statement directly conflicts with his <br />statement he made on July 15, 2002. At that time, Mr. Klausing stated that <br />complaints should be handled by a citizen commission and not the City Attorney. <br />There is no explanation of why there was a flip-flop in positions. <br /> <br />The proposed 3-member commission would violate several standards set <br />by the city c~uncil <br /> <br />The, proposed cOlJllT;lission as envisioned by Mr. Klausi,ng would provjd~ input to <br />the City Attorr;leyand his firm. The::ft.rm: we hire has the ability to :address issues <br />of any nature, and:this proposal clearly would be considered interference and <br />micromanagement of their work. The'idea that three citizens could somehow <br />assist our law firm in an investigation and report is insulting. Knowing that these <br />three citizens most likely will not be municipal attorneys makes this suggestion <br />even more insulting. In many circumstances, it would even be illegal for the City <br />Attorney to share his report with this proposed commission. <br /> <br />The proposed 3-member commission also violates council policy adopted <br />December 2005, which requires that commissions have no less than 5 members. <br /> <br />Conclusion: _ Tre Klausing ethic~ commission proposal wOl!ld: reduce the <br />ethical standards that currently exist in our city today. It also would create <br />a commission in violation of other council policies, have no authority to <br />address complaints, and would be prohibited by law from assisting the City <br />Attorney in much of their work. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.