My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_1031_ET_minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Minutes
>
2001_1031_ET_minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 3:47:51 PM
Creation date
8/24/2017 3:47:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Ethics Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
<br />just recording the reasons for the four motions approved at the last meeting. The Council <br />calendar issued every Thursday had this meeting on it. <br /> <br />The Mayor again wanted it noted for the record that if the meeting continues, it could <br />very well violate the open meeting laws. His attorney wasn’t notified until 4:30 yesterday <br />and the Mayor wasn’t notified of the meeting until Monday afternoon. Joel Jamnik <br />stated he showed up at 7:00 a.m. for a meeting on Monday morning and saw the Ethics <br />Commission notice on the Bulletin Board. Butterfield stated the notice was posted on <br />7:00 a.m. Friday morning. The Commission decided to continue the meeting. Tom Ring <br />asked the Mayor if he felt he would suffer any prejudice if the meeting continues. <br />Kysylyczyn did not feel he would. He did not recall if he received the packet of materials <br />hand delivered to him by the CSO last Thursday. <br /> <br />Battis made a motion to continue the meeting based on the fact that the notice was posted <br />on Friday at 7:00 a.m. Seconded by Kippley All Ayes No Opposed <br /> <br />The Ethics Commission requested over the course of the past year to meet and debrief on <br />their work involving several ethics complaints in 2001. The meeting purpose included an <br />opportunity to share their expectations of the performance of the Commission and how <br />the members collectively performed to that expectation. <br /> <br />The following information reflects that facilitated discussion and is the first part of a <br />discussion that will be continued in late November. A date hasn’t been scheduled yet. <br /> <br />The Commission spent about three hours responding to the following questions: <br /> <br />I. Facilitated Discussion of 2001 Commission Activities <br />Butterfield invited everyone to introduce himself or herself and share their backgrounds. <br />Some of the reasons the Commissioners have chosen to serve are public service; wanting <br />to give back to the Community, hold public officials accountable, and community <br />service. <br /> <br />II. Elements of a high functioning Ethics Commission <br />: Butterfield asked what are the <br />elements of a high functioning Ethics Commission? <br />Assessment Values Training Scope Process and Legitimacy <br />on and And Role Procedures <br />Standards Education <br />Adopt best Integrity of Focus on Pass the Fair and Perceived as <br />practices Members Education Baton Impartial such ---- <br />Hearing public <br />acceptance <br />Consult Fair Training: Provide Clear Promote <br />Legal Ethical Content in Ethical Delineation confidence <br />and out and Guidance of duties in the <br />Process between political <br />staff and process <br /> 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.