2014_0514_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REPC112T C.)F THF CI'TY AT'TOI2'!'F.Y I'4' I2E: ETHICS �OIVIPLAINT' DATFU O�;T4BER 2 2012 This oftice recei��ed a resident complaint dated October 2, 2012, alleging a violation of the Roseville Code of Ethics. Pursuant to Section S.F., of the Ethics Code, this office has investigated the complaint. Under Section S.E,2, this document constitutes our formal report and recommendations in the matter. The complaint (copy attached} asserts a violaiion of Seetion 3.J of the F,thics Code. Section 3.J states: Public Funds, etc. No Public Official shall use public funds, personnel, facilities, or equipment for private gain or political campaign activities, except as may be authorized by law. The complaint alleges that the City Council, the Human Rights Commission, and the City Manager violated this �rovision of the Ethic Codc, While the complaint f'ails to specifically identify the exact actions that purporiedly vialate Sectian 3.J, the complaint does state in pertinent part: "The discussion on the isst�c and instructing people to vote YF.S (sic) on a statc constituti�nal amendmeilt is elearly an act of heing engaged in politscal eampaign activity..,Public funds, �ersonneL and facilities were used for this activitv and there is nothing in law thal authorizes city resoureGS to be used in this manner...There are mimerous mceting minutes and videos of City Council ar�d I-�uman Ri�hts Commission mectings thaf these issues �vere discussed along wi�h nurnerous ne��spaper articles." �Vith this inf�rmation, our office assumes that the complainani alleges that the Ethics Code violation arises frorn the following occurrences: l. On May 16, 2012, after conducting s�vera] public mectings on tr�e topic> the Human Kights Commissic�n discussed and passed a resolution in whieh the advisory body publicly stated its collective opposition to a proposed state constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage and its encouragement to �toseville and Minnesota voters to v�te "no" on the balloi questi�n. (Copy of resolution attached.) 2. On August 27, 2012, the C;ity Counci] discussed and passed a resolution in which the governing body publicly stated its collective opposition to the af.'orementioned proposed state constitutional amendment and similarly �ncouraged Roseville and Minnesota voters to vote no on the ballot question. (C;opy of resolution attached.) Applying these facts, which ar� not in material dispute, to the above-referenced Ethics Code pravision, tl�rs office submits the following analysis and substantive conclusions. Further, because this is the first known complaint asserted under the City's Codc of Ethics, this report also offers guidance regarc{ing praper procedure to be used by both the �thics Commission and City Council in this matter. 1