2014_0514_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

However, to the extent the complaint alleges thak City facilities, pecsonnel, and equipment ��ere used in this matter, the complaint suf�ciently sacisfies the seeond element of'Section 3.J. C. POLITICAL �;AIVI��ICrI°r' ACT[ViTY "I'he Ethics Code doe5 n<�t define "polidcal carnpaign aciivity." According t<� the complaint, the discussion of and encow•agement toward voters f'or a particular vote on a st�te constitutional amendment issue "is clearly an act of being enbaged in political campaign activity." The i;ornplaint is correct on this point. The third element of'SecCion 3.J is satisiied by thc complaint. U. l.AC1� Ui� gUTHORilAT1C3N �3Y LA'1'V Finally, no violation of the Ethics Code exists under Secti�n 3..1 if the alleged activity is autharized by law. There is si�ni ficant r-eason to b�lieve that lhe actions by the Human Ri�hts Cominission and the City Caunci] in this matter are authorized by law. First and foremost, the f'irst An�endment affards freedorn of speech to all citizens and associations, including gove7-nmental entities. �'urther, as f'ar back as ] 966, the Attonley General of the State of Minnesota has offercd the opinion that governing bodies can individually and collectively voice their support or opposition for a ballat initiative, Again in 2006, the Attorney General stated: "Public officials are generally fi•ee, individually and collectively to announce their vie��s on tnatters of public interest, Furthermore, it is not likely that ]ocal governments or assaciations can be precltided from taking and pub}icizing p�sitions on such matiers, even in those circumstances w��here the matters are not within thc jurisdictions of the governin� bodies." With this background, the I,eague of Minnesota Cities issued a bultetin this y�ar in which it �dvised that a city c�uncil can legally adopt a resoiution in support or opposition to a constitutiona] amenc3me��t. �urther, this summer the Minnesota Supi�eme Gourt issued an opinion in l�brahamson v. St. L�uis County School I:)islr•ict, A10-Z 162 (Au�;.10, 2012), in which a school board cxpenc�ed public funds to distr-ibute ne��sletters and other publications in support of a school bonding eeierec�dum. '1'he Supreme Court rulecl that the school district ��as subject to �ampaign-finance rec�uirements for the 1`unds u5ed in such advocacy---and, therePore, suggested that not only can a governing body advocate i��r a particular ballot question, but also that cxpcnditure of public funds to do so is authorized under the law, ]n any event, the weight of authority supports the proposition that the Human Rights Commission and City Gouncil acted llnder authorization oT law in discussing a state constitutional amendment and advocating a particular vote on the issue, even taking into account Che potentill for nominal public funds to have bcen spent in doing sa. Ther�efore, the .final �lement oi' Section 3.J zs not satisficd by the complaint. CONCLU�IO�i This ofticc concludes that a violation of Section 3.J of�the Roser�ille Code of�Echics has not been established by clear and convincin� evidence. This of'fice recommends that the complaint hc dismissed anc� that no advtrse actian be taken in this mattcr, 3