My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0717_ET_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Minutes
>
2001_0717_ET_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 3:49:18 PM
Creation date
8/24/2017 3:49:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Ethics Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Coversheet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
public funds, personnel, facilities or equipment for private gain or political campaign <br />activities. <br /> <br />Mr. Ring stated what is new in the Thompson document is allegation of compensation, <br />and the Lambert complaint refers to campaign contributions. At what point is it a bare <br />allegation? How invasive can they be? <br /> <br />Ms. Pease asked if the Commission will accept this as a complaint or not? Do we need to <br />investigate more? We need to have questions answered before we can go further. <br /> <br /> <br />1. Is this what a City Council person does? <br /> <br />2. Were public funds used? <br /> <br />3. If they were, is use de minimis? <br /> <br />4. Any expense reimbursement sought? <br /> <br />5. City Council person’s authority defined – what is that authority? <br /> <br />6. How did they make that decision to meet as a group purportedly representing <br />the City of Roseville? Did they say that they were representing the City of <br />Roseville? <br /> <br /> <br />The Commission decided that Ms. Pease will talk with Christine Butterfield about these <br />questions. <br /> <br />The Commission voted 3-0 to accept the complaint for further investigation. <br /> <br />JULY 6, 2001 <br />The next complaint was from J.O. Thompson regarding Mayor Kysylyczyn. Ms Pease <br />stated that breaking a campaign promise is unethical but the Commission can’t get into <br />that – it would be neverending. Mr. Ring stated the letter is an allegation of wrongdoing <br />with no supporting facts. Mayor’s counsel represented that the Mayor had complied with <br />campaign contribution disclosure requirement of statute. Mr. Kippley inquired if refusing <br />to answer a question at a City Council meeting is unethical? It has been done before. <br />Ms. Pease stated the accusation is without factual information to back it up. The <br />Commission dismissed the complaint by virtue of lack of substance of factual basis. Mr. <br />Kippley moved not to accept the complaint and Mr. Ring seconded. All Ayes -- <br />Opposed None. <br /> <br />Mr. Ring asked Ms. Pease if she had met with Kevin to which she answered “no”. Joel <br />said Kevin has been retained to give us a letter of agreement executed with him. He will <br />coordinate with the City Manager’s office rather than the City Attorney. <br /> <br />The Commission decided Ms. Pease will call everyone to meet within one – two weeks. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Ring moved to adjourn. Mr. Kippley seconded. <br /> <br />\\Ethics 7.17.01 min.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.