My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_1126_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2001
>
2001_1126_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:28:01 AM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:39:06 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.
/
260
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
Commissioner Pease abstains because the contributions were received <br />when the Mavor was a nrivate citizen. <br />3. Related to the allegation on page 1 paragraph 7 of the Complaint dealing with <br />the issue of the Respondent registering as a Lobbyist: The Commission <br />viewed ine aiiegation as not reievant to investigation of the C;omplaint. <br />The Commission's vote was unanimous with 3-Ayes. <br />The Resolution does not regulate a lobbyist's registration�and registering <br />as a lobbyist does not, in and of itself, constitute an ethics violation. <br />4. Related to the allegation on page 2 paragraph 1 of the Complaint dealing with <br />a letter to the editor written by the Respondent that was printed in the March <br />13, 2001 edition of the Roseville Review: The Commission did not sustain an <br />ethical violation. <br />The Commission's vote was 2-Ayes, 1-Opposed with Commissioners <br />Ring and Pease voting Aye and Battis Opposed. <br />Although the Commission believes that public officials should strive to <br />:a,. ,.�,. _r _�: _L_ �L- -'- '-�, ,. <br />�,ii,v,u� a�i;uia�c i,��uTiiiauuii w�iCi� cx�ic"ssin� [neiimseive5 in puoi�c �leala <br />or forums, this being particularly the case when expressing themselves in <br />their ot�icia'1 capacity or when using their o�cial title, two commissioners <br />believe a letter to the editor that relates arguably incorrect fact (s) is best <br />addressed by an opposing letter or letters to the editor. Except in rare <br />circumstances. a letter to the editor that is suhstantiallv the exnrecsinn nf <br />• - - ---- -- <br />opinion will not rise to an ethical violation. <br />Commissioner Battis will address his vote in the dissent. See Attachment <br />B. <br />5. Lastly, the Complainant also alleged in the Complaint on page 2 paragraph 2 <br />that an excessive number of vehicles in front of Respondent's home <br />constituted a code violation. The Commission referred the matter to the <br />Communitv Devel�nment l�enartment anrl ar.r.nrr�ina tn tha (`itv AttnrnP., <br />� - - - ---r------- - -r---------. »..» »�...,......a .... ..... .....� � �.....,.,..� <br />found no violation. <br />In addition to Attachments A and B, the Commission's entire record in this matter <br />follows as Attachment C. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />�-csn.rL� �Q-�. <br />Connie Pease <br />Ethics Commission Chair <br />Ethicsdecision2001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.