Laserfiche WebLink
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS <br />Section 3 of the Ethics Code sets forth 16 enumerated ethical violations, which prohibits actions <br />ranging from holding incompatible public offices to solicitation of gifts to use of public funds. <br />While this list is non-exhaustive, all ethical considerations under the code are governed by the <br />following premise: <br />"Public Officials are to serve all persons fairly <br />and equitably without regard to their personal <br />or financial benefit. The credibility of Roseville <br />government hinges on the proper discharge of <br />duties in the public interest. Public Officials <br />must assure that the independence of their <br />judgment and actions, without any consideration <br />for personal gain, is preserved." (Emphasis <br />added) <br />Therefore, ethical violations arise when a Public Official's actions are motivated by personal <br />gain over the public's interests. <br />COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS <br />With respect to Council Meinber Laliberte, Mr. Koland alleges three (3) bases for ethical <br />violations: <br />1. That Council Member Laliberte failed to follow proper channels of government. <br />Presumably, this allegation arises from the Ethics Code's preamble contained in Section <br />1("Declaration of Policy"), which states in part: <br />"The proper operation of democratic government request that Public Officials be <br />independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that government decisions <br />and policy be made in the proper channels of the government structure; that <br />public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in <br />the integrity of its government." <br />Specifically, Mr. Koland complains that Council Member Laliberte did not accede to city <br />staff's conclusion that storm water run-off and discharge concerns could be mitigated <br />through a subsequent grading permit review process. Even though this allegation does not <br />allege an actual violation contained in Section 3, Mr. Koland believes this constitutes an <br />Ethics Code violation nonetheless. <br />2. That Council Member Laliberte failed to act in compliance with ]aws under Section 3.N. <br />of the Ethics Code. Speci�cally, Mr. Koland colnplains that Laliberte should have agreed <br />with city staff that the proposed new lot (which was of irregular shape) complied with <br />city code's 85-foot lot width requirement. Also, Mr. Koland complains that Laliberte <br />2 <br />