2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Based on that fact alone, I felt that this matter should be sent back to you, the City Council with the directive that the Ethics Commission could not rr�rnnlPta. ite invPetict�tinn hacP� f1f1 tI1P RPC�I(lt'1l�PtIt�C fAtlllfP t(� (`1V�41PTAtP vvu.r.vw aw ua � ww�jaaravaa vw.avas v.. �..v aw�sYv..�v.... u.a�........ �.. v.�..i.... as.... In other words, the Respondent was successful in preventing the Ethics , , , , . ., i;ommission irom deveioping a inorougn ana compieie recora oecause ine Ethics Commission did not have subpoena power to mandate production of documents, or force a recalcitrant Respondent to testify. 2. Related to the allegation on Page 1, Paragraph 6 of the Complaint dealing �vith tha ieenP nf acepntino �amnaian nnntrih�itinn.c frnm anvnnP invnlvetl ...... �..., .�..».. .,. »......I,..••b .,...•••r»•a .. ...........»...,.-� -- ----• ---� �-•- --- - --- • -- in the Cub Food project at Har Mar, I supported the action taken by the Ethics Commission. Since June 26, 2001, three separate requests were made to obtain this information. Each time counsel for the Respondent responded, he failed to answer the questions asked by the Ethics Commission. In many instances the written response provided by counsel for the Respondent was received the morning of the scheduled meeting. At the Ethics Commission meeting of September 2b, 2001, counsel for the Respondent finally stated that no information regarding campaign contributions would be supplied by the Respondent and stated as follows: "Niemi (counsel for the Respondent) said he and Kysylycayn (Respnndent) are not prepared to disclose campaign contributions unless this Commission wants to get a subpoena of every elected official on the City Council and find out where they got their funding from. " It took over ninety (90) days to get this response from the Respondent and his attorney. Clearly, the Respondent and his attorney knew that the Ethics Commission did not have subpoena power to mandate production of this information. This conduct would hardly be construed as cooperative. Again by the Respondent's failure to cooperate, a complete record could not be developed. 7 T_1_._�. �L_ _ii_ � n_- t n____ __f_ n_D.f__ n_ __t_�_� J--t• �. ncia�CU �u uic auegdiiun �n rage �, rara�apn i oi ine �,�rnpiamt aeaung with the issue of the Respondent registering as a Lobbyist, the Ethics C;ommission voted that the allegation is not relevant to the investigation. However, questions do arise as to the need for the Respondent to register as a Lobbvist when the Citv of Roseville alreadv has hired a nrnfesci�nal � - � - - -.. - -- - -- - - - --- - ---- - ---� ----- ---- - - - r- ---------- lobbyist through the League of Minnesota Cities. In addition, under what authority has the Respondent been authorized to ionby on behave ot the Iviayor, or the citizens ot the l:ity as set torth in his registration information? However, these were not questions posed to the Ethics Commission. 2