2001_0626_ET_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Status of response materials requested May 7, 2001: Ms. Pease asked the commissioners to raise any concerns or comments about the additional information provided by state legislators or the respondent’s attorney. Mr. Battis asked that the commission request a response as to if and how much money Bradley, NKA Heritage Real Estate, contributed. Ms. Peace asked how receiving funds from a given source could affect the findings of the commission. Mr. Battis said this type of information would relate to whether the respondent acted in the best interest of the city, as listed in the Ethics Code. Mr. Battis suggested that the commission ask questions two and three in his letter dated May 24, 2001, as it related to paragraph six of the complaint. Mr. Battis also indicated that the response would address paragraph one, page two, of the complaint. Mr. Ring indicated that he believed the commission disposed of its concerns surrounding the issue at the last meeting. Connie Pease further stated that the letter to the editor in the March 13 issue of the Roseville Review offered by the respondent was an opinion and part of anyone’s free speech. Ms. Pease requested that staff supply a copy of that article for the commission’s next meeting. Mr. Ring asked how the editorial implies an ethical violation. Ring stated that his real concerns rested with the complainants allegation that the respondent offered special consideration to a select group of individuals. The respondent’s attorney voiced multiple requests to be heard, and the Chair indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to allow the commission an opportunity to discuss the matter. No public comment was contemplated at the meeting but may be afforded at a future meeting. Mr. Ring asked that the respondent’s attorney submit questions and concerns in writing to the commission. Battis motioned that the commission secure a copy of the letter to the editor and make it available to all the commissioners for the next meeting and also issue a letter to the respondent including question one from the 5/24 Battis letter. Mr. Ring seconded. Motion passed. Ms. Pease distributed correspondence from the claimant dated June 22, 2001, to the commissioners at the meeting. Mr. Ring asked that the commission ensure that a record is developed and to ensure requests and responses and investigative materials are all done in writing. Mr. Ring also shared his frustration that the commission was not further along in the development of a record. Ms. Pease asked how could we most efficiently develop a record? The Commission responded and proposed to retain an investigator with funds from the Ethics Commission budget. This step would generate a written summary of the record. Ms. Pease distributed a letter from the claimant dated June 22. Mr. Battis suggested that the commission interview the people named in the letter. 2