Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 05/15/06 <br />Minutes - Page 21 <br /> <br />public officials subject to the Code of Ethics, citing the possible <br />detriment of negative publicity to their reputation, even if an <br />investigation proved them innocent of allegations. <br /> <br />Further discussion included legal aspects of the proposed Code <br />of Ethics; the Commission's adoption of their own rules of <br />procedure and by-laws; including "other duties as assigned" to <br />the language; language intent and need for flexibility; rational for <br />deleting the City Attorney from the list of public officials with <br />them subject to investigation and discipline by a separate body of <br />legal peers; who would maintain investigative authority under <br />the proposed ordinance; and Councilmembers potentially <br />advocating for others with positions contrary to City Council <br />action and how that would impact their service under the Ethics <br />Ordinance; impacts to First Amendment rights; incorporating a <br />clause into contract provisions addressing ethics; and language <br />intent for "not serving two masters." <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust requested attorney review for language <br />consistency, specifically regarding consultants, in other sections <br />of the proposed Code of Ethics. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan distributed, as a Bench Handout, the <br />Ethical Practices Board information from the City of <br />Minneapolis, and opined the City Council should use it as a <br />template for the City of Roseville' s Code of Ethics. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that he and City Attorney Squires would <br />continue working on the draft and present another copy for <br />Council and public comment at an upcoming City Council <br />meeting. <br />