My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2012 01 30 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2012 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2012 01 30 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:44:32 PM
Creation date
2/22/2012 8:36:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/30/2012
Original Hardcopy Storage
7D4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2012 01 30 SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br /> Special Meeting Minutes <br /> January 30, 2012 <br /> Page 7 of 8 <br /> Council must act like a judge in quasi-judicial matters. In general, the parties <br /> appearing before quasi-judicial bodies are entitled to a fair and impartial tribunal, <br /> just as a party before a court would expect to receive. <br /> Elected officials should approach a quasi-judicial decision as follows: <br /> - base decision on matters presented during the hearing <br /> - not discuss pending matters outside the hearing <br /> - not discuss pending matters with the public <br /> - not discuss with other staff or officials outside the hearing <br /> - disclose any outside discussions <br /> - disclose any outside materials or documents received <br /> - in cases where the official's ex-parte discussions or review of documents <br /> outside the hearing renders them unable to be fair and impartial, they <br /> should refrain from participating. Louisville's Code of Ethics suggests <br /> such nonparticipation may be appropriate where there would be an <br /> appearance of unfairness or partiality if the official participated in the <br /> hearing. The conflict needs to be examined in a subjective way—ask the <br /> question "Can I set aside all my baggage and decide on what is <br /> presented" and in an objective way—Take a step back and look at what <br /> the public perception may be. <br /> E-MAILS MAY BE SUBJECT TO REQUESTS UNDER THE OPEN RECORDS <br /> ACT <br /> Whether or not an e-mail is subject to Open Records depends on the following <br /> criteria: <br /> - where it resides— is it a public computer or a private computer <br /> - content— is it business or personal <br /> - if it is partly business and partly personal, it can be open <br /> The conclusion or moral, author and recipient beware — don't e-mail anything you <br /> don't want a district court judge to read. <br /> Participants discussed e-mail policy in relationship to those received outside of <br /> packet preparation and Council meetings. Full disclosure seems to be the key. <br /> PARTICIPATION IN QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS <br /> The City Council and Staff members participated in exercises to clarify the <br /> difference between a legislative and quasi-judicial action and their role. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.