Laserfiche WebLink
City Atto�rney Anderson apined that he didn't see any First Amendment <br />issues in his perceptian af the propased Ethics Code, with Councilmembers <br />free to express their personal viewpaints and using that as a disclaimer to <br />avoid any misinterpretation. <br />Public Comment <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria S�reet <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn provided a Bench Handout entitled, "Code of Ethics for <br />Public Officials in the City o� Roseville," with his personal co�nparison of <br />the prapased code and those previously addressed by the Ethics Task Force. <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the Ethics Ordinance should be passed anly by <br />unanimous vote. <br />Councilmember Kough took issue wi�h public eomment prior to a vote on <br />his amendment. <br />Discussian ensued regarding process. <br />Councilmember Pust opined her support of ieaving Item F in the proposed <br />code, noting the ability of a Councilmembear to identify themselves as <br />speaking on their own; and opining that she saw no violatian of First <br />Amendment rights in the language. <br />Councilmember Maschka expressed concern that the language was vague. <br />Roll CaII <br />Ayes: Maschka; Ihlan and Kough. <br />Nays: Klausing and Pust. <br />Kough moved, Ihian seconded, by adding a provision identified as Item "R" <br />to Section 3(E�hical Cansiderations), on page 6 of the Ethics Cade, to add <br />Ianguage, "Auihori . No public afficial sha11 exceed his or her autharity, or <br />breach the law, or ask others to do so." <br />Di�cussion ensued regarding the vagueness of this proposed amendment. <br />City Attorr�ey Anderson nated that the "breach the law" language was <br />already in the proposed code; and the proposed amendment should delete <br />"...or breach the law,"... <br />