2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A'I°I'ACHMENT B DISSENTING OPINION On October 22, 2001, the Ethics Commission met for the final time to address the Complaint as filed by the Complainant. I felt it was necessary to address a number of issues regarding the record of information we were able to obtain, as well as the requested information we were unable to obtain. I will follow the same order of the Complaint as set forth in the report of the Ethics Commission as signed by the Ethics Commission Chair. My comments are as follows: 1. Related to the allegation on Page l, Paragraph 5 and throughout dealing with the issue of whether the Respondent took inappropriate lobbying action at the Minnesota State Legislature, I opposed the vote on the basis that a complete record had not been developed. Contrary to the position taken by the Respondent at his press conference following the October 22, 2001, meeting, the investigators report did not completely exonerate the Respondent. On the contrary, it raised a number of issues that still needed to be addressed. The focus of the investigators report was too narrow. This is why I wanted the chance to intervie�;� not only the Respondent, but also the Complainant and Councilman Maschka. In addition, the testimony as provided by the Respondent to the investigator contradicted the Respondent's own testimony in the Deposition taken May 16, 2000, in the matter af Jeffrey L. Nielsen vs. Daniel G. Wall. Please refer to page 90, line 9 through page 92, line 7 of that deposition for further information. I was particularly interested in asking for further clarification on the discrepancies. The Respondent refused to answer any questions as posed by the Ethics Commission on October 22, 2001. The Respondent took the position that the investigators report covered all aspects of questions we might ask. I asked the Respondent to direct me to where in the investigators report we could find information explaining why the Respondent was down at the Minnesota State Legislature. The Respondent responded by saying that the report did not include all the questions asked by the investigator. I again responded with my question and the Respondent refused to answer stating that the investigators report addressed my question. The Ethics Commission had requested oral testimony in an effort to complete the record and allow both parties the ability to present any additional testimony prior to the Ethics Commission taking final action on the Complaint. Unfortunately, vve were not able to complete the record based on the Respondent's failure to cooperate and answer the yuestions posed by members of the Ethics Commission. This severely hampered our ability to ascertain the facts and complete the record.