CCP 06022025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 1 COMPLAINTS & ALLEGATIONS st The City Manager received two written complaints following the April 21hearing. Both complainants own property abutting the Aldine ROW. On April 23, 2025, the City received an ethics complaint from M. Erickson, whose address is 93 Mid Oaks Lane. Ms. Erickson and her husband T. Brown testified at the public hearing in favor of the proposed vacation. In her complaint, Ms. Erickson stated the following: . . . In my opinion, counsel person Julie Strahan used her position of power to sway 3 a vote regarding area V. Once the public comment period ended, Julie Strahan made a statement about her sister living near the path and using the path that goes through the easement. Julie’s statement shows that she has a clear conflict of interestwhen it comes to the vacation of area V. I also feel, she violated the code of ethics, specifically code 3M, but possibly more. In addition, the code of ethics clearly states a public official should remain impartial. Julie’s comments make it clear that she is not impartial. I think the only option is for Julie Strahan to recuse herself from further votes regarding area V. Thank you for reading my complaint and considering taking action to prevent a biased vote. On April 24, 2025, the City received an ethics complaint from S. Quinn, whose address is 89 Mid Oaks Lane, who was also one of the individuals who testified at the public hearing. In her complaint, Ms. Quinn stated the following: . . . After the public comment period . . . Council member Julie Strahan made a series of inappropriate comments and a biased motion. Her comments advocated against the proposed Aldine ROW vacation on behalf of family members – in direct opposition to the property owner comments plus a written petition signed by all affected property owners, who are all in support of the proposed Aldine ROW vacation. In my opinion, Council member Strahan’s behavior violated the Roseville City Council’s ethics code, specifically Section 3M, which prohibits favoritism towards family members. Council member Strahan may say that she would have that opinion anyway; however her comments involved mentioning family members, which was her choice and indicated family connection motive for the comments. Also, in my opinion, the appropriate remedy is an apology from Council member Strahan, recusing herself from any further comment on the matter, and recusing herself from the eventual Council vote to vacate the Aldine ROW or take other action. 3 “Area V” is the label given to the Aldine ROW in the Request for Council Action. 5 RS160\\27\\1025838.v5 Qbhf!49!pg!385