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 33 <br />Councilmember Laliberte stated, at this point, she thought the CEC was finding <br />its way as a new CEC; and noted the City Council's original intent was clearly de- <br />fined in the CEC's charge in their enabling ordinance. While considering that sta- <br />tus, Councilmember Laliberte did not that the one thing the City Council had spe- <br />cifically asked the CEC to work on was the comprehensive plan update process <br />and to bring specific recommendations back for that process, a very important <br />piece for them to provide advice on. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was <br />looking forward to the CEC completing some of their preliminary worlc and ad- <br />dress that important issue. From her observation of the CEC meetings to-date, <br />Councilmember Laliberte noted some conversations about planning or hosting <br />some events to make recommendation to the City Council on how they should be <br />done; and advised that was an area of concern that there may be some overlap oc- <br />curring between the HRC and commission, with planning events or programs part <br />of the same group or an off-shoot and not yet taking place. Councilmember <br />Laliberte noted the importance to check-in and make sure those efforts were not <br />being duplicated. <br />Mayor Roe agreed that made sense. <br />Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte and specific as- <br />sigmnents, such as the process of engagement or the comprehensive plan update <br />process as something the City Council could use help with, noting that was a big <br />topic coming up in the very near future, with many options of how best to do han- <br />dle the process. Councilmember McGehee stated the need to be clear that the <br />City Council expected a periodic check-in for at least those two very speci�'ic <br />charged when first enabling the CEC. While agreeing with Councilmember <br />Laliberte that the CEC is still finding its way, Councilmember McGehee stated <br />the City Council needed to mark the pathway more clearly to facilitate their ef- <br />forts. <br />Mayor Roe agreed that was well-stated by Councilmember McGehee, and noted <br />the CEC had also been charged with observing the SE Roseville process and how <br />to engage people in that. Mayor Roe suggested perhaps an early 2016 joint lneet- <br />ing and presentation by the CEC of their respective work plan was needed to pro- <br />vide that check-in. <br />Councilmember McGehee noted part of the human rights is the diverse communi- <br />ty piece, not just community engagement. <br />Mayor Roe opined that the difference was human rights not looking specifically <br />to engage people in city activities, but viewing the broader communiry. <br />Mayor Roe reiterated the next step to schedule a joint meeting early in 2016. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.