My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0320_Packet_Study
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0320_Packet_Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 2:23:50 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:33:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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
annually and suggest modifications to the ethical standards of <br />conduct applicable to Rosevalle public officials. <br />2. That the Commission and City Council consider not only <br />minimum compliance standards of ethical conduct, the violation <br />of which may expose a public official to some form of discipline, <br />but also aspirational ethical goals. In this review, the <br />Commission should clarify the distinction between actions that <br />are "per se" unethical and actions the general public would <br />consider laudatory or would build public trust in government. <br />The Task Force specifically recommends that the Ethics <br />Commission look to the City of Dayton, Ohio's Ethic's Code for <br />possible aspirational ethical goals. Further, the Ethics <br />Commission should consider amending page 6 of the Ethics <br />Resolution relating to conflicts of interest arising due to <br />membership in certain organizations. <br />3. That the Ethics Commission and the City Council consider <br />removing from the list of ethical improprieties those behaviors or <br />activities that can best be described as crimes. Certainly, <br />criminal conduct such as offering or accepting bribes is <br />unethical, but the investigation and punishment of crimes <br />resides with law enforcement agencies and not the Commission. <br />4. That the Commission not be given subpoena power <br />5. That the Commission and the City Council consider making it an <br />ethical violation for the subject of an ethics complaint to refuse to <br />respond in good faith to the Commission's reasonable requests <br />for information. <br />6. That the investigatory role of the Commission be made time- <br />sensitive. The Task Force recommends that the Commission <br />spend no more than 60 calendar days investigating allegations of <br />ethical misconduct in any single complaint following the meeting <br />at which the Commission determines that an ethics complaint <br />requires investigation. The Ethics Commission may extend its <br />investigation one-time for 30 days unless the City Council <br />expressly rejects such an extension at its next regular meeting. <br />7. That the Commission decides at an early point in reviewing an <br />ethics complaint whether to appoint one of its own members as <br />an investigator or to appoint an outside investigator. It is difficult <br />and time-consuming for a five-member citizen volunteer body <br />collectively to investigate a matter. <br />8. That the ethics code of conduct be amended to clarify the <br />standard by which, first, the Commission and, then, the Council <br />:, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.