CC_Minutes_2016_1010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 10, 2016 Page 18 tion of the Preamble to the Ethics Code related to ethical considerations. Mr. Ko- land clarified that the basis of his complaint(s) stemmed from mailings sent out for his Minor Subdivision land use application and the City Council's role, refer- encing and displaying the post card mailing for the public hearing on that land use application. Mr. Koland stated that his concern was with false statements he con- sidered had been made, and staff recommendations made related to the subdivi- sion of lots as submitted in his application and how square footage and lot config- uration had been interpreted from his perspective. Mr. Koland opined that if find- ings of individual city council members were personal opinions and not that of elected officials of the City Council, he questioned where accountability for those opinions came in during the course of city business, and their reliability for those judgments or whether they became questionable. City Attorney Gaughan responded briefly noted that such robust discussions and individual opinions were frequently part of the decision-making process of elected officials, including the City CounciL Mr. Gaughan refocused tonight's discussion on the formal written complaint merely consisting of an accusation of violation of the City's Ethics Code. Mr. Gaughan noted this didn't in any way state that it wasn't important that public officials treat citizens fairly; noting the process for citizens to voice their displeasure if they felt a public official hadn't duly executed the duties of their office through the election process. Mr. Gaughan reiterated the intent of the Ethics Code to be applied when a public official used their position for personal interest or gain versus that of the city and its broader constituency. Specific to the Preamble clause of the Ethics Code addressed by Mr. Koland in his statements tonight, City Attorney Gaughan noted Mr. Koland's misunder- standing of the City Attorney's written report and reference, suggesting that as the complainant, Mr. Koland alleged that Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee failed to follow proper channels by not simply rubberstamping city staff's rec- ommendation for approval of Mr. Koland's Minor Subdivision application. Mr. Gaughan clarified language in the Preamble as well as Section 1 of the Ethics Code, specific to individual opinions related storm water mitigation concerns in this particular case. Councilmember Willmus advised that he had viewed the Ethics Commission and report of the City Attorney to that body, noting that it had proven a robust discus- sion; and left him in agreement with the Commission that no violation of the Eth- ics Code had occurred. Willmus moved, Etten seconded, concurrence with the findings of the investiga- tion and recoinmendations of the City Attorney and recommendation of the Rose- ville Ethics Commission, that no violations of the Ethics Code had been estab- lished by Mr. Koland's complaints against Councilmembers Laliberte and McGe- hee; and no further action was indicated.