My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0626_ET_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Minutes
>
2001_0626_ET_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 3:56:25 PM
Creation date
8/24/2017 3:56:25 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.
/
6
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
Mr. Jamnik confirmed that this was the case. Jamnik said the City Council would have to <br />allocate additional funds. Mr. Jamnik also clarified that because the City Council had <br />already authorized the 2001 budget he believed that the City Manager needed to execute <br />a letter of agreement with the firm the commission selects. <br /> <br />Ms. Pease moved to hire Kevin Lindsey as the independent investigator to create a <br />written record for the Ethics Commission. Mr. Battis seconded the motion. The Motion <br />passed unanimously. Mr. Ring abstained from the vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Pease asked what questions does the commission want to ask and who should be <br />interviewed? <br /> <br />Mr. Ring stated that the commission should decide on the parameter and scope of Mr. <br />Lindsey’s assignment and how much background information to provide to the <br />investigator. Mr. Ring asked do we provide all of the information or none of the <br />information. <br /> <br />Following a brief discussion, the commission agreed to provide all of the information <br />provided to the commission to date to Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Battis added that the full list of <br />individuals discussed on June 26, 2001, tier one and two, should also be interviewed to <br />create the written record. Mr. Battis stated he’d like to see it done as efficiently as <br />possible. Ms. Battis stated that the focus should be to develop more information and <br />investigate the respondent’s activities at the legislature. Ms. Pease reiterated that the <br />investigator would review the Mayor’s activities when he visited the capital grounds. <br />Mr. Battis agreed and pointed to paragraph five of the March 26, 2001, complaint noting <br />that the investigation will focus on the information resulting from the deposition. Mr. <br />Battis asked that staff ask Mr. Lindsey what would be a reasonable time frame to <br />complete the investigation. <br /> <br />The commission agreed that they would like to see a complete and thorough investigation <br />with all deliberate speed. Mr. Battis asked if the commission should offer a second <br />investigator preference. Mr. Jamnik indicated that that wasn’t necessary. Mr. Jamnik <br />said that despite the legislative break the scope is narrow enough to allow for a fairly <br />rapid turn around. <br /> <br />Ms. Pease asked the commission to review an ethics complaint submitted by the Mayor. <br />The commission noted several elements required by the complaint procedure that were <br />not included in the complaint. Mr. Ring raised his concern about sequential ethics <br />complaints and that the purpose of the current meeting was not related to this new <br />complaint. The commission discussed considering the matter at a later meeting if it <br />complied with the complaint procedures. <br /> <br />Mr. Ring asked does the commission accept complaints when another complaint is <br />pending. <br /> <br /> 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.