My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_0307_Ethics Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Ethics Commission
>
Packets
>
2019_0307_Ethics Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/11/2019 10:26:16 AM
Creation date
7/11/2019 10:26:14 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.
/
18
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
Ethics Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Wednesday, October 11, 2017 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />1 Member Bull stated the Planning Commission has discussed what it means to self- <br />2 regulate and tries to make sure they are conforming. <br />3 <br />4 Member Hodder commented they have had Commissioners that have come on mid-year <br />5 and missed the ethics training. It is important for them to understand what their scope is <br />6 and what ethical violations are. He appreciates the examples provided in the training <br />7 that allow people to see it in action. <br />8 <br />9 Chair Cihacek summarized they would like more scenario based training and a separate <br />10 training for open meeting law, communications and anything else to enhance a <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 VI. Other Business <br />14 Member Bull stated the Ethics Training may be a good opportunity to provide a handout <br />15 on Open Meeting Law. <br />16 <br />17 Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Gaughan both stated they have not received any ethic complaints <br />18 or advisory opinion requests since they last met. <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 that with the number of departments and Commissions they have, they would have more <br />22 people asking. <br />23 <br />24 Chair Cihacek stated the highest risk is for a City Council Member. A Commissioner is <br />25 very limited in role and does not have a lot of power. However, a City Council member <br />26 would have a higher risk because of their legislative and executive authority. <br />27 <br />28 es to all the City Council and Department Heads. <br />29 <br />30 Chair Cihacek stated they are not a target for ethics violations and therefore do not <br />31 require advisory opinions. A lack of advisory opinions is not indicative of concern <br />32 because of performance and the different levels of risk each person experiences in terms <br />33 of the Ethics Code. <br />34 <br />35 le <br />36 coming forward and asking for opinions. While she is not suggesting they do not have <br />37 this, she is concerned that they go years without having a request for an advisory opinion. <br />38 <br />39 Chair Cihacek suggested they ask at the Ethics Training what people are experiencing <br />40 and have further discussion about it. <br />41 <br />42 Member Bull stated people know if they have any potential gain from a decision or action <br />43 they make. <br />44 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.