Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Wednesday, October 3, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br />III. Public Comments <br />None. <br />IV. Consider Complaint of Mr. Brad Koland against Roseville City Council Members <br />Chair Cihacek deferred to City Attorney Mark Gaughan. City Attorney Gaughan re- <br />viewed his role to the Ethics Commission related to the Ethics Commission and Ethics <br />complaints received by the city. <br />Specific to recent complaints �iled by Mr. Brad Koland as part of his application for a <br />Minor Subdivision by Mr. Koland, 1926 Gluek Lane, Roseville, MN against Roseville <br />City Council members Lisa Laliberte and Tammy McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan ref- <br />erenced the written complaints addressed to his office and dated September 19, 2016 re- <br />spectively. Mr. Gaughan noted that a copy of both written complaints from Mr. Koland <br />had been included in tonight's ineeting packet materials. <br />Mr. Gaughan advised the Commission that they <br />consideration of an Ethics Complaint: <br />1) Adopt the findings of the City Attorney and <br />their ultimate action on the matter� <br />2) Fashion their own report, and while they are n <br />vestigation, they can craft their own findings� <br />for their ultimate action on the matter; or �� <br />options in their review and <br />to the City Council for <br />authorized to conduct any further in- <br />�d �forward them to the City Council <br />3) Take no action and defer to the City Council for ultimate action, but with no action by <br />this body on the matter. <br />In conclusion, <br />thing in respo� <br />priate, with th <br />plaints. <br />advised that the Ethics Commission didn't need to do any- <br />ts other`than receive any complaint they thought was appro- <br />retaining their authority to take action on any and all com- <br />Since this was the first meeting of this Ethics Commission, City Attorney Gaughan brief- <br />ly reviewed the role and purpose of the Commission as detailed in Resolution No. 11163 <br />amending the City's Code of Ethics for Public Officials (as an amendment to Resolution <br />No. 10905), adopted July 14, 2014. Mr. Gaughan noted a copy of the resolution was in- <br />clude�l in tonight's packet materials as well. Mr. Gaughan advised that the role and pur- <br />pose of Coriimission was elaborated on in the annual Ethics Training held by the city; and <br />proceeded to review what the Commission's role was and what it was not as per the <br />adopted resolution. Mr. Gaughan encouraged the newly-appointed commission to review <br />city website archives focusing on the City's Code of Ethics and standard of conduct gov- <br />erning city officials. Mr. Gaughan clari�ied that this is a code of conduct, and not a law, <br />but an attempt for the best interest of the broader community to be at the forefiont of any <br />city actions. Mr. Gaughan reviewed the two prongs of ethics code, for government of�'i- <br />cials and/or elected officials and also for city management Mr. Gaughan noted that the <br />public at large, advisory commissioners or employees could seek advisory opinions from <br />