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 44 45 Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 3, 2016 Page 4 City Attorney Gaughan responded that yes, from his perspective, current city code did create some ambiguity on that point. Mr. Gaughan clarified that lot width and size was up for interpretation by staff. From his perspective as a member of the Planning Commission, Member Bull noted there were sometimes differing inteipretations by Planning Department staff and that of Plan- ning Commissioners. Member Bull stated of more significance to him was whether or not this proposal would fit into the nature of the neighborhood, even thoug� that was to- tally subjective as written in city code, while taking into consideration the impact to and character of a neighborhood. From his perspective, Member Bull stated he deemed the City Council's action in line with their responsibility within those city cpde parameters. City Attorney Gaughan stated a community wanted individual council members to use their discretion in interpreting code, seiving to best represent the overall community. Member O'Brien noted there were a number of �residents speaking at the City Council meeting on the Minor Subdivision application. For the benefit of the listening audience, Member O'Brian aslced City Attorney Gaughan to provide a clear explanation of what, if any, obligation an individual council member has to fo11o� �recommendations of city staff. City Attorney Gaughan responded that the��City Council was under no obligation to fol- low city staff recommendations, as they were just that, recommendations. Mr. Gaughan noted each council member was elected to� do a job and serve as the final decision-malcers for their constituents, with each elected 4fficial leaning on their own life experiences and interpretations, along with taking into account staff recommendations, public comment and input from applicants and/or advisory commissioners, all within the parameters of city code. At the end of the day, Mr.�� Gaughan noted all government is set up for public officials to use their discretion, thus the purpose of the election process. Just because their decision may differ from someone else's, Mr. Gaughan advised that didn't mean they were behaving unethically, and usually meant they were doing their jobs correction. Member O'Brien stated she had concluded there was no ethical violation, only a differing of opinions. Specific to Mr. Koland's allegation that confidential information was used that he was not privy to, Member O'Brien asked if her reading was accurate in determin- ing, �vl�ether or not the information was public knowledge or if Mr. Koland simply wasn't aware of it, �and if there were any indications the information was confidential. City Attorney Gaughan stated he could find no evidence the information was con�'idential in nature; and even if it had been, there was also no indication that Councilmember McGehee had used the information for her own personal gain. Mr. Gaughan noted it was fine for a council member to use the information to inform their decision-making; and the only way to run afoul of that would be if the information was used for personal gain. However, Mr. Gaughan noted that such an occui-�ence wasn't even alleged.