Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Battis confirmed with Beets that both the Complainant and the Respondent had been provided notice of this meeting and their opportunity to attend. Beets indicated that both had received <br />written notice of this meeting and a copy of the Commission’s Ethics Resolution and operating procedures. <br /> <br />Battis referred to a memo submitted to all Commission Members by resident Al Sands. He asked Mr. Sands to clarify whether his July 8 memo to the Ethics Commission was intended as a <br />separate ethics complaint or as a commentary on the pending Chiarella ethics complaint. Sands indicated the latter, and stated he believed cities should protect their elected officials <br />or no one will run for office. <br /> <br />Battis referred to section 5.A of the Ethics Resolution and section V of the Ethics Procedures. Those sections provide that the Commission will refer an ethics complaint to law enforcement <br />authorities if the conduct that is the subject of the ethics complaint may constitute a criminal offense. Battis indicated the Commission may wish to refer this matter to the City Prosecutor <br />in order to comply with these sections and to assure protection of Respondent’s constitutional rights. <br /> <br />Battis asked Langseth and Ihlan for their reactions. Both stated it may be premature to address the ethics issues until all the criminal issues – misdemeanor as well as felony – are <br />addressed. <br /> <br />Langseth moved to refer the Chiarelli ethics complaint to the City Prosecutor for evaluation of the filing of criminal misdemeanor charges. Ihlan seconded. VOTE: 3-0, with Battis, <br />Ihlan and Langseth voting aye, and with Ring abstaining. <br /> <br />Battis moved to ask the City Prosecutor to respond to the Ethics Commission in writing with the Prosecutor’s decision. Langseth seconded. VOTE: 3-0, with Battis, Ihlan and Langseth <br />voting aye, and with Ring abstaining. <br /> <br />Battis moved to ask the City Prosecutor to consider the following information that was not part of the Ethics Commission’s file: <br /> <br />any agreement or retention letter between the Respondent and Mr. Niemi for legal services <br />all periodic billing documents between Mr. Niemi and the Respondent <br />whatever Request for Proposals or Qualifications, or similar document, used by the Respondent to request that the City of Roseville secure Mr. Niemi’s services <br />whatever letter or letters Respondent may have sent to the City of Roseville seeking reimbursement for these legal fees <br />