2017_1011_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 3, 2016 Page 3 the City Attorney, whether formal or informal in nature; with a complaint procedure clearly outlined accordingly. Specific to these complaints, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would review his of- fice's response in the form of a written report regarding the complaints alleging viola- tions of the Ethics Code against Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee, also included in written format in packet materials. City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would re- view the repoi-t and then field responses, questions or comments prior to the.;Commission moving one of the three options as previously outlined and as the next steps. City Attor- ney Gaughan reviewed the written report in-depth, first the three alleged Ethics Code vio- lations and ethical considerations for Councilmember Laliberte, and then the five alleged violations t-eceived against Councilmember McGehee. As noted in his report, City Attorney Gaughan stated one thing notably missing was that there was no implication or notice that either Councilmember Laliberte or Councilmem- ber McGehee did anything in their own personal best interest as� opposed to the city's best interest that would indicate either made any decisions on the Minor Subdivision applica- tion without the best interest of the city at the forefront of their decision-making. As such, Mr. Gaughan advised that his office deter�nined that neither alleged complaint sup- ported any provision that the Ethics Code had been violated by either councilmember. Mr. Gaughan further noted that in terms of elernents of. a violation, the complaint clidn't even present a true interpretation of the city's Ethics Code. Mr. Gaughan reiterated the three options for the Commission to consider as they deliberate these coinplaints; and of- fered to respond to questions of the body. Ethics Commission Deliberation Regarding the finer points of the allegations, Member Bull asked if the application far the Minor Subdivision would specify the �dimensions of the plat; and if city staff deemed the subsequent lots were 85' in width and whether someone could interpret that the proposed lot(s) didn't meet that minimum. City Attorney Ga�ghan responded that this particular Minor Subdivision application in- volved an irregularly shaped parcel, not a rectangular 1ot, but located on a corner 1ot on a curve, resulting a pie-shaped lot. When the existing lot was cut up, Mr. Gaughan noted it still had an angle� to it, opining that had 1ed to the need for interpretation regarding the lot Member ��O'Brien asked if city code was that vague that it allowed for no definitive an- swer io that question for an irregularly shaped lot. In her reading of the City Council meeting minutes from the date the Minor Subdivision application was heard, Member O'Brien noted it appeared everyone was in agreement that it met code except those malc- ing the proposal, opining she found it somewhat confusing.