2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Richard Lambert ("Compiainant") made an ethics complaint against Mayor John Kysylyczyn ("Respondent") to the City Council on March 26, 2001. See Attachment A (hereafter "Complaint"). After referral by the Council, the Ethics Commission ("Commission") reviewed the Complaint consistent with the requirements of Resolution 8593, as amended by Resolution 9306 ("Resolution") on Apri12, 2001, and accepted the Complaint and immediately commenced an investigation pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Resolution. On October 22, 2001, the Commission met for the eighth time concerning the Complaint, and now makes the following determination and recommendations to the City Council: Related to the allegation on page 1 paragraph 5 and throughout dealing with the issue of whether the Respondent took inappropriate lobbying action at the Minnesota State Legislature: On the record evidence the Commission cannot sustain an ethical violation. The Commission's vote was 2-Ayes, 1-Opposed with Commissioners Ring and Pease voting Aye and Battis Opposed. The Commission's investigator, Attorney Kevin Lindsey, found no relationship existed between Respondent and the Everest Group for which Respondent received compensation or benefit to lobby on behalf of *, he Everest Group concerning pending TIF legislation; however, among other things, representatives of the Everest Group declined to be interviewed in the course of the Commission's investigation and Respondent declined to answer questions outside of one interview with the investigator. Commissioner Battis will address his vote in the dissent. See Attachment B. 2. Related to the allegation on page 1 paragraph 6 of the Complaint dealing with the issue of accepting campaign contributions from anyone involved in the Cub Food project at Har Mar: The Commission is unable to make a determination regarding Cub Foods and related campaign contributions because Respondent demanded prior service of a subpoena before he would provide responsive information. The Commission's vot� was 2-Ayes and 1-Abstention, with Commissioners Ring and Battis voting Aye and Pease Abstaining. Sworn deposition testimony in a lawsuit demonstrates that the Respondent accepted campaign contributions from persons, or relatives of persons, engaged in a lawsuit against the City. However, without further information from the Respondent about his campaign financing in general, and the details surrounding these particular campaign contributions, such as the timing and the circumstances under which the Respondent accepted these contributions, the Commission is unable to make a decision about whether the Respondent acted unethically under the Resolution.