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 /> <br /> <br /> <br />Pease asked if everyone had the opportunity to look over the letter going to the City <br />Council. Were there any concerns or changes? Pease was uncomfortable with the <br />statement “the Commissions vote was divided” because it sounded misleading. The <br />decision was made but the Commissioners did not all agree. It is not clear and she would <br />like it changed back. Jamnik stated we might want to rephrase it to ‘the majority 2-1 <br />found the following”, versus use of the word “divided”. Pease stated on the Cub Food <br />thing, she abstained and did not vote in favor or against it. It should be changed to 2 <br />Ayes and 1 Abstention. Pease felt we also need to add at the end of the letter the <br />conclusion “the Commission referred the matter to the Community Development Dept. <br />which found no code violation”. We need a conclusion to that instead of leaving it up in <br />the air. Battis stated his dissent would be attached to the letter going to the City Council. <br />Ring handed out a summary he worked on after reading the Draft. Ring suggested we <br />should add, ‘”he declined to answer questions outside of one interview with the <br />investigator”. Battis suggested adding this sentence “the investigator Kevin Lindsey <br />found no relationship existed between respondent and the Everest Group from which the <br />respondent received compensation or benefited from lobbying on behalf of the Everest <br />Group concerning pending TIF legislation; however, among other things, representatives <br />of the Everest Group declined to be interviewed in the course of the Commissions <br />investigation and the respondent declined to answer questions outside of one interview <br />with the investigator. Battis stated the last sentence would read, “For the reasons set <br />forth in Attachment B, Commissioner Battis will address his vote in the dissent” <br /> <br />Battis made a motion to approve. Ring Seconded. All Ayes No Opposed <br /> <br />On Section 4, a vote was taken on the language Commissioner Ring added. Battis made <br />the motion and Ring Seconded. All Ayes No Opposed <br /> <br />Ring made a motion to approve what Pease added that the Community Development <br />Department found no violations. Battis Seconded. All Ayes No Opposed <br /> <br />Battis made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 a.m. Seconded by Langseth. All Ayes No <br />Opposed <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.