My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0508
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0508
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:57 AM
Creation date
6/20/2006 3:08:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/8/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 - 05/08/06 <br />Minutes - Page 25 <br /> <br />and on page 4 of 6, inclusion of subsection "j," further <br />identification of use of public facilities needed to be <br />detailed. Councilmember Pust also suggested language and <br />additional comments related to data privacy stipulations <br />relating to the Ethics Commission, as well as the City <br />Attorney or City Manager (page 5 of 6, subsection "r"); and <br />the need to specifY language of the third to last paragraph <br />on page 6 of 6, identifYing connection with professional <br />societies or various organizations and potential conflicts of <br />interest. <br /> <br />Further discussion included comparison of Ethics Codes of <br />other cities; and whether the City's Code could go beyond <br />State Statute. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing directed staff to put the item on the next <br />available Council Study Session agenda for further <br />discussion, depending on work load and additional agenda <br />items and timing. <br /> <br />Public Comment <br />Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue <br />Mr. Lambert advised that he was speaking on behalf of the <br />Roseville Citizen's League; and noted that the proposed <br />document incorporated the majority of the "Schultz Ethics <br />Task Force" recommendations, with the exception of <br />defining the role of City staff. Mr. Lambert noted that he <br />had initially had concerns regarding the role of the City <br />Attorney in being the recipient of complaints, but after <br />hearing tonight's discussion, had concurred that the City <br />Attorney was the best person to receive those complaints, <br />given potential criminal litigation concems. Mr. Lambert <br />opined that it was an "excellent document," and suggested <br />the document include a time frame to limit the Ethics <br />Commission's investigation to bring closure to a case. <br /> <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that several things were missing <br />from the document: why the code would be established by <br />resolution rather than by ordinance; addressed conflict of <br />interest laws for cities greater then 50,000 in population <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.