My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_0814_ET_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Minutes
>
2013_0814_ET_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2014 2:49:31 PM
Creation date
7/28/2014 2:49:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Meeting Minutes <br />Ethics Commission <br />August 14, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />available in a manner where it would be reasonably foreseeable that a person or entity would <br />benefit from it. <br />Acting Chair Lehman indicated that he and Fjelstad were on asubcommittee to review <br />the Ethics Code and detailed prior meetings with City Attorney Mark Gaughan to review <br />potential languagechanges. City Attorney Ericksonindicatedafter his reviewthat the <br />language addition didn’t present any legal concerns as far as he is aware. Collopy <br />suggested changing the language to read: <br />No Public Official shall use information gained as a Public Official which is not <br />generally made available to and/or is not known to the public, to directly or indirectly <br />gain anything of value <br />, or for the benefit of any other person or entity shall any Public Official <br />make such informationavailablewhenin a manner whereit would be reasonably foreseeable that <br />a person or entity would benefit from it. <br />Attorney Ericksondiscussed consistencywith commas/semi-colons moving forward and <br />the commission agreed to restructure the changes bringing it back to City Attorney <br />Gaughan for his review. <br />The Commission also discussed reviewing the language in Section 3.M and agreed to <br />have the City Attorney review that as well. <br />Collopy moved to have the ethics code subcommittee bring back changes to sections 3.B <br />and 3.M to the City Attorney. O’Brien seconded. <br />Ayes All. <br />V.Discuss Potential Changes to Ethics Code, Section 5 <br />The Commission discussed Section 5 of the Ethics Code that discusses the process of <br />responding to an ethics complaint. Acting Chair Lehman indicated that draft changes to <br />the language were proposed and reviewed by City Attorney Gaughan who had indicated <br />concerns. <br />The Ethics Commission continued to discuss what changes were desired in the section <br />and agreed that more instruction on how to respond to a complaint was desired. The <br />concerns and limitations by the Commission included, but were not limited to, what data <br />privacy restrictions were present when responding to an ethics complaint, what <br />limitations do the Ethics Commission have when a violation of the ethics code is present, <br />and what is the direction of the Commission when an ethics complaint might involve the <br />City Manager or City Council? <br />Lehman asked for clarification on whether or not the commission can dismiss a <br />complaint if found unsubstantiated. O’Brien asked whether or not the City wanted the <br />Ethics Commission to be a part of the decision making process. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.