My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_1112_Ethics Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Packets
>
2014_1112_Ethics Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2017 9:06:44 AM
Creation date
10/10/2017 10:46:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Ethics Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
5 _ Jurisdiction <br />If certain groups are excluded from an ethics program's jurisdiction, the others will feel that <br />the program is unfair. Therefore, an ethics program should have jurisdiction over all local <br />government officials, including the local legislative body and those who consider themsel�-es <br />independent agencies, such as sheriff's offices, law departments, housing departments, <br />transit, water and sewer authorities, and the board of education (unless there is a state ethics <br />system for school boards). An ethics program should also have jurisdiction over employees <br />and board members of quasi-public and public-pri�-ate agencies and authorities. <br />Liniformed departments may have oversight mechanisms, and lawyers and other <br />professionals may have disciplinary bodies. But because these do not deal with government <br />ethics matters, neither uniformed departments nor professionals should be excluded from a <br />government ethics program's jurisdiction. <br />There should also be jurisdiction over government employees, including union <br />members, although the less responsibility they have, the more limited are the ways in which <br />they can be faced with conflict situations. Minor matters, such as gratuities given to teachers <br />or garbage collectors, are best handled by the personnel department or by supervisors. <br />In addition, ethics administrators should have jurisdiction over former officials and <br />employees, government contractors and vendors, consultants, lobbyists, businesses seelang <br />permits, grants, and other favors from the local government, and anyone who aids or <br />induces ethics violations. It is important to have jurisdiction over all parties to each <br />transaction, so that all parties are enrolled in the program, includin� training and advice. <br />This makes it in everyone's interest to help officials deal responsibly with their conflicts <br />rather than to help them ignore or create conflicts. <br />6. Enforcement <br />Ethics enforcement is what happens when an ethics program has failed. That is, enforcement <br />occurs �vhen an official has not learned, through training and ongoing discussions of ethics <br />issues, to recognize conflict situations and seek advice, and when her supervisor, colleagues, <br />and subordinates have been unable to prevent the official's ethics violation. <br />Enforcement is intended to prevent the misuse of office not only through sanetions <br />and the belief that misconduct will be reported by colleagues and subordinates. It also does <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.