My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0827_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2001
>
2001_0827_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:49:35 AM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:38:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
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
Options: <br />The City Council may - by verbal motion -- move to <br />Approve the recommendation of the Ethics Commission and dismiss the 7uly 3 ethics complaint of <br />Mayor John Kysylyczyn against <br />a) Finance Director Ed Burrell, <br />b) City Attorney Joel Jamnik, <br />c) Council Member Dean Mashka, and <br />d) former City Manager Steve Sarkozy <br />2. Modifv the recommendations of the Ethics Commission in some respect, such as by <br />a) dismissing the complaint as to certain respondents but not others; or <br />b) dismissing the complaint but issuing some form of counseling letter to one or more of the <br />persons who are the subjects of the complaint. <br />3. Reject the recommendations of the Ethics Commission and take some action other than dismissal of the <br />complaint. For example, the City Council could remand the complaint back to the Ethics Commission <br />for further investigation of some aspect of the complaint. Furthermore, the City Council could reverse <br />the Ethics Commission. This result requires a finding by the City Council that the Ethics Commission <br />abused its discretion and that the record before the Commission clearly supports a conclusion that one <br />or more of the respondents has committed an ethics violation. Consistent with this option, the Council <br />would formally find that a particular person has violated a particular section of the Ethics Resolution, <br />and the Council could explore some further disciplinary proceeding or criminal investigation as to that <br />person or persons. <br />4. Continue this agenda item until Ms. Pease can attend, until substitute legal counsel for NIr. Jamnik is <br />retained, until both of the foregoing occurs, or until the Council has had additional time to consider this <br />matter. <br />In addition, Section 5(a) of Resolution 8593, seems to indicate that the City Council may take "no action" <br />respecting the Report and Recommendation of the Ethics Commission. That section says <br />Results of the investigation of the Ethics Commission sha11 be reported to the <br />City Council along with the Commission's recommendation for disposition. <br />Thereafter, the City Council sha11 take appropriate action which may include <br />censure of a Council Member, discipline of City Manager, or no action. <br />Of course, if the Council wishes to take no action, no motion is necessary. It is uncertain what effect the <br />absence of Council action has on the pendency of the complaint. <br />Let me know if you ha�e any questions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.