2016_0224 HRC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 8, 2016 Page 26 1For the record, Mayor Roe asked if the CEC had any recommendations to change 2their scope of duties or ordinance language; with Chair Becker confirming that 3they had no recommendations to that effect. 4 5Ethics Commission 6City Manager Trudgeon addressed the role of the Ethics Commission (EC), noting 7two members were present in tonight’s audience. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the 8original intent of the EC when set up and their current quarterly meeting schedule 9given the limited number of issues coming before the EC of late. Mr. Trudgeon 10suggested another approach may be prudent comprising the EC with other com- 11mission members to meet annually for training. As expressed by the City Coun- 12cil, the EC meets infrequently and there appears to be a lack of meeting substance, 13creating hesitancy on the part of the City Council to appoint someone to serve. 14Therefore, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that consideration be discussed to have com- 15mission chairs serve on the EC on an as-needed basis, since the Ethics Code and 16annual training are in place. Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had prepared a quick 17draft of such a potential ordinance with tonight’s meeting materials as a starting 18point off point for feedback. 19 20Councilmember Laliberte asked for input from the EC commissioners tonight and 21whether or not they found their work fulfilling. 22 23Norine Quick-Lindberg, Heinel Drive, Representative of the EC 24Ms. Lindberg offered a written,prepared statement providing her personal opin- 25ion, suggesting that the City Council revisit the Ethics Code and revise it. Ms. 26Lindberg opined that Roseville was unique, but without formal complaints that 27didn’t necessarily equate to a sound system, and suggested refinement of the code 28prior to eliminating scheduled meetings of the EC, which may then prompt less 29frequent meetings than even quarterly. 30 31Ms. Lindberg shared inconsistencies she found (e.g. definition clarifications be- 32tween employee and non-employee public officials being unclear – Section 5.d 33criminal); the lack of denied sanctions and advisory positions (e.g. Section 2.4); 34and whether the City Attorney or EC are given more weight in issuing advisory 35opinions. If the EC doesn’t have that authority, Ms. Lindberg questioned their 36purpose. 37 38Ms. Lindberg further noted that the City Council determined its own sanctions if 39found in violation, and as discussed before and with minor revision, thought more 40discussion was needed for all Councilmembers if an ethics complaint was filed. 41Ms. Lindberg advised that she had compared the Roseville Ethics Code with those 42of other metropolitan communities, and based on complaints heard earlier tonight 43and those attendees at the Roseville EC, opined that the City of Minneapolis had a 44general Code of Ethics to guide behavior and Human Rights Act definitions. 45With the addition of a general discrimination statement and federal and state law