CCP 06022025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 1 substantially more likely that a violation has occurred, than not. It is a higher standard than a “preponderance of the evidence” (the standard for most civil cases) but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the standard in criminal cases). DISCUSSION The facts are not in dispute. Both complaints rely solely on what happened at the public hearing on April 21, 2025. Council Member Strahan is a public official subject to the Code of Ethics for Public Officials in the City of Roseville. The language inSection 3, Paragraph M prohibits a Public Official from taking an official action or influencing any process that would benefit any person if such action would not have been taken “but for” a family or other relationship. Any ethical violation must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. To be clear, the test is not that a listed person will benefit from the action alone, but instead requires that the action taken will benefit the listed person and that the action would not have occurred “but for” the listed person’s relationship to a City Council Member. The Roseville Code of Ethics does not define “benefit” or “family relationship.” Benefit The Roseville Code of Ethics does not define the term “benefit.” The Roseville Code of Ethics does define “thing of value” to include money, real or personal property, a permit or license, a favor, a service, forgiveness of a loan or promise of future employment. There is no allegation, and no evidence, that Council Member Strahan, or her sister-in-law, will financially benefit from a City Council decision to deny the vacation. It should be noted that, if the term “thing of value” was intended to be equivalent to “benefit”, the only item listed in that definition that may apply to Council Member Strahan’s actions, would be a favor – however no evidence presented supports that there was a favor exchanged here. It is not clear from the language of the ethics code whether the use of the term “benefit” was intended to be different than a “thing of value.” Given this lack of clarity, the analysis herein is made without drawing a conclusion regarding whether Council Member Strahan’s sister-in-law will “benefit” from Council Member Strahan’s actions. Further, it is not clear that keeping, as opposed to vacating, the Aldine ROW (maintaining the status quo) provides a “benefit” that is any different than improving (or even maintaining) a park, trail, sidewalk, or other park amenity that a family member of a city council member might use or is near that family members house. Classifying such an action as a “benefit” as being disqualifying could have far-reaching implications. Family relationship The Roseville Code of Ethics does not define the term “family relationship.” However, it does define “immediate family” and the definition does not include siblings or siblings-in-law. 7 RS160\\27\\1025838.v5 Qbhf!51!pg!385