My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016_0210_Ethics Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Packets
>
2016_0210_Ethics Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2017 9:08:02 AM
Creation date
10/10/2017 11:08:39 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.
/
17
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 30, 2015 <br />Page 28 <br />Councilmember Willmus suggested starting with defining the charge and scope <br />for the HRC and CEC and how to clarify theu specific roles, as well as how they <br />functioned related to a meeting schedule. <br />City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff could better help advisory commissions <br />if not meeting monthly. <br />Councilmember Willmus asked staff to provide their recommendation, with con- <br />currence by Mayor Roe, for meeting frequency of various commissions, and any <br />other ideas or desires they wished to share with the City Council at this time. <br />Ethics Commission <br />Mayor Roe advised that since he'd been serving on the City Council in 2007, only <br />one ethics complaint had been received and subsequently withdrawn, or at least <br />with no formal action being taken. Therefore, Mayor Roe stated he had inixed <br />emotions in appointing citizens to serve when not receiving complaints or no <br />changes are indicated to the Ethics Code. Mayor Roe opined that staff could per- <br />form the training without a commission, but noted the process was in place in <br />code that the Ethics Commissioli review complaints as they were received and <br />help consider those complaints and their resolution. Mayor Roe stated he had <br />given consideration to recommending demoting the Ethics Cominission from a <br />standing committee to an ad hoc committee, staffed by one member from each <br />commission if and when a complaint or issue needed addressing based on the Eth- <br />ics Code. Mayor Roe noted that direction could be provided to them at that time <br />to seek their input and would serve as the reality of how the Ethics Commission <br />could function and what serving residents actually received from theit- set-vice on <br />that Commission. <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated that her observations from the last two joint <br />meetings with the Ethics Commission was a sense of fi-ustration from them; and <br />no charge to do anything other than enact monthly ethics tips and annual training <br />put on by staff and the City Attorney. Councilmember Laliberte stated she shared <br />Mayor Roe's concern in appointing people who in turn become disappointed or <br />frustrated by a lack of ineaningful worlc. <br />For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe clari�ed that his comments in no way in- <br />tended to suggest he was advocating getting rid of the Ethics Commission or not <br />have a complaint process in place, but simply rethinking how it operated. <br />Councilmember Willmus noted that, using Mayor Roe's idea for members serving <br />from standing commissions, they would still review complaints as currently done <br />by the standing Ethics Commission. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.