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
�f�� provides to both commissions may be unsustainable in the long term without additional resources. <br />���� Unlike other Departments, the Administration Department currently serves three commissions <br />��.��« (depending on the outcome of the Ethics Commission). Given the level of importance that staff and the <br /><;��� City Council attaches to each commission, there is a significant amount of time put in each month <br />2s,r working with commission members, preparing agendas, attending commission meetings, and <br />F��:� implementing the worlc initiated by the commissions. As the staff of the Administration Departlnent is <br />F��� tasked with many different duties (as are all City staf�, it is often a fine balance of taking care of the <br />���5���a commission's priorities and needs while completing the other necessary and important daily tasks. <br />��� To be clear, the City Manager is not suggesting Administration staff stop supporting the HRC or the <br />����r CEC. Nor is the City Manager suggesting that either commission isn't important or less of a priarity <br />���� than any other commission. However, assuming that no additional resources are forthcoming in the <br />���� near future, one option to consider is lessening the frequency of the meetings of both commissions to <br />�t� better distribute work load. In regards to the CEC, the relatively recent beginning of the Commission, <br />�, as well as the recent turnover of Commission members, will require a lot of wark on behalf of the staff <br />�:�� to help advance its work. The reduction in meetings may allow the City Manager to become more <br />���� directly involved with worlcing with these commissions. <br />�€� If the City Council is open to considering changing the frequency of these commission meetings, the <br />�€�� City Manager suggests the commissions meet every other month (6 times a year). There would also <br />�F, still be the ability to hold special meetings of these Commissions as needed. <br />� a` FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS <br />���� A financial impact would result in changes to meeting frequency. Current costs associated with <br />�� commission support include minute preparation and staff time. <br />rat��r R�QuESTE� CoUNciLAcTioN <br />�>�� Review scope, duties, and function of the Human Rights Commission, Community Engagement <br />��>;��r Commission, and Ethics Commission. <br />_�� <br />Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager <br />Attachment A: November 30 City Council Meeting Minutes <br />Attachment B: Human Rights Commission Suggested Code Changes <br />Attachment C: Community Engagement Coinmission 2016 Goals and Work Items <br />Attachment D: Suggested Code Changes to Ethics Chapter <br />Attachment E: Minutes froinJanuary 14 Community Engagement Coinmission Meeting <br />Attachment F: Minutes froin January 20 Human Rights CommissionMeeting <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.