2014_0514_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ANALYSIS Section 3..1 of che L�hics t:ode ii�volves four distinct elements that al�usi exist beiore a violatian can occur. 'The Faur elements are; A. C:c�ndttct hy Public t)fticials; I3. Use of public funds, personnel, facilities, or eyuipme�it; C. Political campaign activily; and D. Lack af authorization by la«-. Scrutiny af cach element is necessary for a proper detei•mination in this matter. [f all four elen�ents are found to exisi in this matter, then a violation of fhe Ethics Code has bcen cc�mmitted, If� any of the four elements are not present, then a violation af the Fthics Gode has nc�t been committed. Under Section S.P, the standard for decisions regarding allegations of e;thical violations shall be by "cicai• and com�incing evidence," as that phrase is detinecl by state law. In Minnesoia, clear and coilvincing evidence requires more than a preponc�erance of lhe evidence bui less than proof beyond a reasonahle doubt. Clear and convincing evidence exists only ��-here the truth of the facts asserted is "highly prc�babl�." A, CO1�'DUCT B"ti' PUBL�C OrFICIALS� The Code of EChics defines "Public Officials" as: members of the City C'ouncil and Mayor; the department head and assistant department head of each City departi��ent; members of any City comiz�ission, board, and task force; and the �:ity Manager. The complaint asserts that actions by the City Council, thc }-{uman Rights Commission, and the City Managzr co�lstitute. the alleged violation. 'T'o the e�ctent that the complaint alleges a violation duc to tiie discussion and passing of distinct resolutions, tlle Human Ri�;hts Co��mission and City Council are appropriately named. �s such, the cotnplaint sufficiently sati5fies the �rst elem�,nt of Section 3,J with regat•d to the Human Rights Commissian and the City Council. The fact that t11e City Manager may have been present for one or both actions, however, does not equate to actu�l conduct by the City Manager. Therefore, the complaint does not satisfy the �rst element oi' Section 3.J with regard to the City Manag�r. !3. USE OF PLJBLiC �iJNUS, PERSp1V�FL, FACILIT'IES, �JR EQUiFMENT "T'he compinint a.sscrts that the alleged violations involved the use of' an advisory commission's meetings and' a regular mceting of the City Council, all or som� of which presumably occurred at a�ublic f'acifity (City Hal]), Futrther, the drafting and execution of the respective resolutions presumably required some involvement by City personnel and equipment, It can fairly be concluded, then, that public personnel, facilities or equipment were used in the commission of the alleged violation. Whetller public fi�nds were actually expcnded within the context of the alleged violation is less certain, It is dif�cult, if not impossible, to compute whelher the amount of public funds required to suppo�-t the personnel (salaries/wages/etc.), 1'acilities (council chambcrs/e:te.), or equipment (paper/copy machine/etc.) actually increased �s a result af the alleged violation, Therefare, it cannot be said that public f'unds were expended in this macter. F]