My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0813_Ethics Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Packets
>
2014_0813_Ethics Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2014 10:00:52 AM
Creation date
8/6/2014 10:00:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
III.7/14JointMeetingMinutes <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 14, 2014 <br />Page 10 <br />9.General Ordinances for Adoption <br />10.Presentations <br />a.Joint Meeting with Ethics Commission and Consideration of Proposed <br />Changes by the Ethics Commission to the Roseville Ethics Code <br />Recognizing that only two members of the Ethics Commission were available to- <br />night, City Manager Trudgeon noted that this was due to scheduling conflicts, and <br />should not be taken as intent at offense by the City Council. <br />Ethics Commission members present were Vice Chair Ben Lehman and Commis- <br />sioners Nancy O’Brien. <br />Vice Chair Lehman reviewed the recommendation of the Ethic Commission to the <br />City Council for an amendment to the Roseville Ethics Code, as detailed in the <br />RCA dated July 14, 2014; and followed several drafts to get to this final recom- <br />mendation, subsequently approved by the City Attorney. <br />Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the recommendation, and opined <br />that, based on his viewing of the Commission meeting discussions, the final rec- <br />ommendation made sense given the context from which if originated, and provid- <br />ed a step in the right direction. <br />Commissioner O’Brien reviewed the origination of the problem with a complaint <br />received and subsequently withdrawn in 2012, with no process in place for ad- <br />dressing withdrawal, while recognizing the need for the City Council to determine <br />if it was appropriate to be withdrawn. <br />Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were provisions made if something <br />was ongoing and while the complainant wanted to withdraw, there could be a pro- <br />cess for the City Council to take action. <br />City Attorney Mark Gaughan responded that, based on his recollection of discus- <br />sions, he had intentionally worded the amendment to address that option, with the <br />City Council able to carry on a review of an allegation of their own volition as <br />applicable and no matter if and when a complainant may withdraw their com- <br />plaint. <br />Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, adopted Resolution No. 11163 (Attachment <br />B) entitled, “A Resolution Amending the Code of Ethics for Public Officials in <br />the City of Roseville (Resolution No. 10905);” amending Section 5 of the Code <br />regarding withdrawal of ethics complaints. <br />Mayor Roe offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the makers of the motion, <br />amending language of the first sentence of Section 5, Item H as follows: <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.