2001_1126_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. Related to the allegation on Page 2, Paragraph ] of the Complaint dealing with a letter to the editor written by the Respondent that was printed in the March 13, 2001, edition of the Roseville Review, I opposed the motion. As was previously mentioned, information and facts used to support the letter to the editor written by the Respondent was requested back on June 26, 2001. After numerous written requests were made for production of information from the Respondent relative to this matter, his attorney at the Ethics Commission meeting held on September 26, 2001, stated as follows: "Neimi (counsel for the Respondent) claims the Mayor (Respondent) has not been subpoenaed and he has a right to express his opiniorz. " At the Ethics Commission meeting held October 22, 2001, counsel for the Respondent recanted his statement, but no facts have ever been supplied by the Respondent showing what information he relied on to support his contention that the City Council's action cost the City $250,000.00 regarding the Cub Food grocery store proposal for the Har Mar shopping center. For the meeting held October 22, 2001, the City staff supplied information indicating that the actual cost to the City was $123,761:�0. This information was dated August 20, 2001, and was complied at the request of the Respondent. The letter to the editor for the Roseville Review was published back on March 13, 2001. At the October 22, 2001, Ethics Commission meeting the Respondent disputed these numbers, but failed to produce any written memos to City staff requesting further clariiication or recalculation. Again, the Respondent was in the best position to respond to the request for documentation supporting his letter printed in the March 13, 2001, edition of the Roseville Review. No responsive information was ever provided by the Respondent. I disagree with my fellow commissioners on this topic. Once you become an elected official a higher standard of conduct is required. In addition, by the mere fact that you are an elected official it is presumed by the general public that you have access to information they do not. If the Respondent had not signed his name as Mayor and made a reason attempt to determine the actual dollar amount of the dispute, I would feel differently. Again the Respondent was in the best position to resolve this dispute, but Respandent and his counsel continually disregarded numerous requests for information. The Respondent's conduct, from what little information that could be discovered, appears to have been unreasonable and in reckless disregard of the truth. Such conduct is incompatible with the best interest of the City and appears to have had one goal in mind and that was to cause public humiliation of the City Council regarding this matter. For this reason I believe the Respondent's conduct was inappropriate and should require a written retraction.