2015_0513_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

R�;�o��r' C)]F TFi�� CITY ATT06t;!'EY [1� RE: ETHICS COM1'LAi?�"[' I�AT�D OCTOf3�� 2 20i2 This office recei��ed a resident complaint dated October 2, 2.012, ailegin� a violation of ihe Rasevilie Cade of'Fthics. Pursuant to Section S.E of'the �thics Cade, this offiee has investigated the ct�rnplaint. Under Seciion 5.E.2, this document constitutes our formal report and recommel�dations in the matter, The col��p3aint (copy attached) asserts a violairon of S�ction 3.J of'thc Ethics C�c�e, Section 3.J states: Pubiie ru��ds, etc. No Public �ffcial shai] use public funds, personne�, facilities, c�r eguipment for private gain or political campaign activities, except as may be at�thorized by la��v. The eomp3aint alleges that �he City Council, the Human Rights Gommission, and the City Mana�e�• violated this provision of' the Cthic Codc, While the complaint fails to specifically idcntify ihe exact actions that purpo�ledly vio(ate Section 3.J, the campiaint does state in perti»ent part: "Tl�e discussion on the issuc and instructing people to vote YF.S (sic) �n a state constitutional ai�e��t{silent is elearly an act bf heing engaged in politi�al camp�i�n activity...Public funds, personnef, �ind facilities ��cre used for this ��ctivity and ihere is nothing in law t11at authori•r.es cily resources to be used ii7 this manner.,.Thi;re are mamerous meeting zninutes arld vid�os of' City Counc;il arid 1-luman Rights Commission meetiribs that these issues �vere discussed along with numerous ne��spaper articles." With this lnformation, our office assumes that the �omplainanf alleges that the Ethics Code viaiati�n arises from the follorx�ing oceurrences: 1. On May 16, 2012, af'ter conducting several public mectings on t1�le topic, the Human Rights Commission discussed and passed a resolution in which the advisory body publicly Stated its collective opposition to a proposed state constitutional amend��nent regardin� the de�nition of man•iage and ils encoura�ement to Raseville and Minnesota voters tv vote "no" on the baliot question. (Capy of resolution attached.) 2. Qn A��gust 27, 2012, the City Council discussed and passed a resalution in which the governing body publicly stated its collective opposition to the af.`ore3�entioned propo5ed state eonstitulional amendment a�1d similarly encouraged Rosevillc and Minnesota voters tc� vote no ori the ballot yuestion. (Copy of resolut'ron attached.} �pplying these f'acts, which are not in material dispute, to the above-referenced Ethics Code provisian, this of�ce submits the fallowing analysis and substantive conclusions, �urther, because this is ihe �rst 1<»own complaini asserted tinder thc City's Code of Ethics, this report also affers �uidance regarding proper procedure to be u5ed by bc�th the �tl�ics Commission and City Cc�uncil in this matter, 1