|
Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes
<br />Wednesday, August 12, 2015
<br />Page 4
<br />1 c. Sherry Sanders, 363 S McCarron's Blvd.
<br />2 Ms. Sanders agreed with the comments of previous speakers, noting she had per-
<br />3 sonally seen unbecoming behavior at City Hall and other places with those repre-
<br />4 senting the City, making this an important thing to take on.
<br />5
<br />6 d. Lisa McCormick
<br />'7 In her personal review of the charge from the City Council to the Ethics Commis-
<br />8 sion, Ms. McCormick expressed her disagreement in its reading, ����}ing it would
<br />9 fit well under their charge as she interpreted it, under "other d��es and functions"
<br />10 or in its charge to "conduct studies specifically directed by " ity Council."
<br />11 ,,i���!�////// ;,
<br />12 Ms. McCormick advised that her purpose in bringing
<br />13 tention is to provide them with a heads-up that the��,,,��
<br />14 ly engaged with the Cit�y Council related to th� °iss�
<br />15 noted that she had also been actively enga�,��witl�
<br />16 forts, which resulted in her forming a nei� ��hoo�
<br />1'7 stated she saw this as a way to give bac� to��������n
<br />18 background involved in collaborative approac ��i���; ,
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />26
<br />2'7
<br />28
<br />29
<br />30
<br />31
<br />32
<br />33
<br />34
<br />35
<br />36
<br />3'7
<br />versus litigation, she was it as a way to further tY����
<br />community. �//
<br />�,,,,,,...._
<br />�s to the ��'�° }nission's at-
<br />'° �' �
<br />,�e several ���;� ts active-
<br />. Ms. McC�ick further
<br />ommunity engagement ef-
<br />;�e�ciation. Ms. McCormick
<br />mity, and as an attorney by
<br />ernative dispute resolution
<br />C�aborative approach in the
<br />In reference to her previous responses during Ms. Ramundt's comments, Ms.
<br />McCormick noted she had brought this to the City Council's attention on two dif=
<br />ferent opportunities. Ms. McCormick noted that one time was during public
<br />comment directly in response to the,City Council's priority policy planning doc-
<br />�� ii�
<br />ument discus�� ��'� cific to the,�,�mmunity engagement priority they identified.
<br />As an atto e M���✓IcCormi� stated that people often brought issues to her at-
<br />,
<br />tention ��ut � � ° ilden's rece�nt incide�nt. U on lookin into it further
<br />� ��j,,p ' i�,��% ����� p , g >
<br />Ms. 1�1'cCf��� ���� s"tated �ier disappointment with what she d heard, especially giv-
<br />en the City ���'��il's omments at their strategic planning retreat in February and
<br />,, ;,,,
<br />�;������,,deterrY�''��''�n by the City Council and staff to move forward toward
<br />'inor"�'�'�„ , mer �imacy or better public relations in the community. However,
<br />/j
<br />after th ���cent incident, Ms. McCormick stated that she realized she had no as-
<br />surance �� offer that people will be treated well without a complaint process
<br />,,,
<br />and/or ��licy in place and no action taken unless corroborating evidence by 100%
<br />of th��Gvitnesses or other conclusive evidence was available.
<br />38 ��ased on her conversation with Mayor Roe, Ms. McCormick stated that if she en-
<br />39 ' couraged people to participate, she couldn't assure they would be treated with re-
<br />40 spect. Since that isn't always the case, Ms. McCormick opined something was
<br />41 wrong, causing her to be careful when inviting citizen participation or involve-
<br />42 ment on a task force and hesitating to do so until she had some assurances in place
<br />43 that people will be treated respectfully. Unless they were already well-seasoned,
<br />44 Ms. McCormick expressed her hesitation to encourage their involvement, opining
<br />
|