2015_0513_Ethics Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hc�wever, to the extent the complaint alieges tliat City facilities, personne�, and ec�uip�nent ��ere used in this matter, the complaint sui'ficiently satisfies the second element of`�ection 3,J. C. P{)LlTCCA�, �'A14'C�'�l�r?�; �,C"I'i�'�TY 'I'he Ethics Code does nc>t dc�ne "politica] campaign activiry," According tt� tl�e eomplaint, the discussic�n of and encoui•agement totivard voters for a pai-tic'ular vote �n a state constitutional amencime��t issue "is clearly a.n act of bein� en�aged in political campaign activity," The �omplaint is corr•ect on this point. The third element oi'Section 3,J is satisfied by thc complaint. [). I1�C� O�C� �UTF�ORI'L�TiO� �'Y LA'VV Fina3ly, pa violation of the Ethics C:ode exists under Section 3.J if the alleged activity is authoril.ed by law, There is si�ni ficant reason to believe [hat lhe actians by tl�e Human Rights Co��rr�ission and the City Council in this matter are authorized by law. First al�d foremost, the f�irs� Amendment affords frecdom of' speech to all citizens and associations, including ga�Jer-nmental enlities. ��Ui'(:}1�I', as far back as 1966, the Atton�ey Get�cral af the State of Minnesota has offered the opinion that governing bodies can indir��iduaily a��d collectively voice tl7eir support or opposition for a ballot initiative. Again in 2006, the Attan�ey General stated; "Pub�ic officials are generall� fi-ee, individually and collectively to announce their vie��s on mattci�s of public interest, Furthermore, it is not likely tl�at local governments or associations can be precluded from taking and publiciring positioi�s ot� such matters, even in those circumstances where 11�e n�atters are not �vithir� thc jurisdictions of thc governin� b�dics." \�r'ith this �acl<grou��d, the Irea�ue of Minnesota CitieS issued a bulletin this ycar in which it advised ti�at a city council can le�ally adopi a resolution in support or apposicion to a ------ constitutional amendment. I�urther, this summer the Minnesota Supreme C.c�urt issued an opinion in Abra�amson v. St, Lauis C:ountv School l�istl•ict, A 1 Q-? 162 (Au�, l Q, 2012 j, in ��hich a schoal bo��rd �xpendcd public funds ta distribute neti��sletters and other pul�}icat�ons i n s u p p o r l o f a sc hc�o l bon ding referendum, "1'he Supr�eme Court rul.ed that thc scho�i district ti�-as subject to c�im�ai�;r�-finance requircmcnls tor the f�unds used in such advacacy---�n�, thcrefore su that nc�t only can a govei-ning body �dvocate {��r• a particular ball�t question, but asoeth t cxpel�diture �i' public funds to do so is authorized under the ]aw, In any event, the weight of authority supports the proposition that the Human }2ights Commissian and C;ity Counci] acted t�nd�:r autharization of law in discussing a state constitutional arnendment and advocating a particu�ar vote on [he issue, even taking into account l:he potential for naminal public funds to have been spent in doing so. Thereforc, the final element oi' Section 3.J is z�o� satisficd by the complaint. CONCLU�7Q?�i This officc concludes that a violation of Section 3.J of the Rosevillt Cc�de of� �thics has not been estal�lisl-�ed by clear and convincing evidence. This office recoi��n7ends that the complaint bc dismissed aT�d that no adver5e. action be t�ken in tl�is mattcr, 3