Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />1'7 <br />18 <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 />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Wednesday, August 12, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />Chair Lehman thanked speakers for their attendance and public comments, and <br />noted that the Commission would take it under advisement and consult with the <br />City Council moving forward at their next joint meeting. <br />11I. Approve Minutes of May 13, 2015 <br />Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the May 13, 2015 minutes, seconded by <br />Commissioner Becker. <br />Ayes A11: Motion passed <br />1V. Group Discussion: Ethics readings <br />Chair Lehman referenced various readings and articles of <br />dividual commissioners for group discussion, and forward� <br />Commissioners discussed the various articles and <br />ent, perceived, or obvious conflicts of interest bas�, <br />i- <br />e�xetatlon ot potential, appar- <br />Discussion included conflicts with ernployment, adv�"�''����and lobbying efforts; private <br />and public differentials and positions specific to regula�'''� �� �� sinesses or industries; im- <br />portance of public perception when s�rving as a public o�cial no matter the i�ntent� and <br />�a��,,,; , > <br />valid concerns of the public in thos�p��+��t��ns and ,higher and broader transparency <br />needed in most instances. <br />Further discussion included part-time st�tius for most state legislators versus a more full- <br />time status for legislators at the nationallevel; those areas that should be common se�nse <br />i/%� <br />or obvious not alway���,� �,observed, s�,�luences of situations often affecting the percep- <br />i ,,i <br />tion; and the chal��iges o/ ocial med�and email with government ethics based on per- <br />„ <br />sonal versus r' e. �/%�eta of State Hila Clinton � and the extra caution <br />p � ,,��% � gi% ����,i,,„ �Y �Y � <br />needed in cla�fif �}�f����; �i��e �social media postings are personal or based on your posi- <br />���i, <br />tion; and whether o�� r;they should be posted at all depending on their nature, content, <br />and/or i���� �,,,,, /��///////////� <br />litional disc����ion ensued related to social media best policies or ethical policies ver- <br />,; <br />First Amen '�� ent rights specific to serving as a government official; the need to keep <br />;; <br />� things pr��'ate with day-to-day operations and avoid blurring that line. <br />Dur�"f�'�'�� �"ussion of the value expressed by individual commissioners in NextDoor.com, <br />and w'�� �� er or not the city had a policy on how they handled posting to it, City Manager <br />Trud 'eon clarified that this was run by a private firm, not the city, and the City held the <br />position to use it sparingly only for sporadic posting of events or information to avoid <br />usurping neighborhood communications. City Manager Trudgeon noted that often the <br />city became aware of a topic or issue after-the-fact when a resident sought a response and <br />the City wasn't aware of the issue beforehand. Comments by individual commissioners <br />included the apparent low-key, helpful nature of NextDoor.com and accountability of it. <br />