Laserfiche WebLink
Prosecutor shall make such opinion public as soon <br />as possible and as soon as publicly posting said <br />opinion will not harm the best interest of the <br />City." <br />Ms. Nick opposes this amendment as she believes <br />this section is not: following the intent of the <br />Public Meetings Law for local government and the <br />amendment permits one appointed official to decide <br />whether an opinion should be made public. "The <br />City Prosecutor is not an elected official and <br />hence not responsible to the public as our elected <br />officials. I urge you to withdraw these <br />amendments to the F~thics Code." <br />Rautenstraus explained that the change of this <br />particular section, is a matter of policy for <br />Council to determine. Every advisory opinion <br />would have to be posted immediately under the <br />current Code. With. this amendment, under certain <br />limited instances, an advisory opinion would not <br />be immediately posted. This change may not <br />clarify the Code, lout may be a way of encouraging <br />people to seek advisory opinions. Currently, <br />people may not seek: an advisory opinion because it <br />would be publicly ~>osted. Rautenstraus stated <br />that it would be for Council to decide which value <br />they determine to be most important - immediately <br />posting the opinion or possibly encourage more <br />people to seek opinions. <br />Sackett asked why an advisory opinion needs to be <br />public at all. "It seems to me that an employee <br />or public official ought to be able to get an <br />opinion conf identia.lly." "If you want to know <br />whether or not certain activities would be ethical <br />or not ethical, you. ought be able to do that <br />confidentially." <br />Mohr stated that he' agreed with Ms. Nick's <br />concerns on both proposed amendments to the Ethics <br />Code. Mohr feels it important that people are <br />aware that charging a person with an alleged <br />violation is a serious charge and should not be <br />entered into frivolously. Therefore, it is proper <br />to have the section. assessing the costs of the <br />investigation including reasonable attorney fees <br />against the person acting in bad faith or filing <br />the groundless and frivolous complaint. However, <br />this may best be addressed by the District Court <br />when the determinat:ion is made relative to such <br />civil action. <br />Both Councilmen Sca~rpella and Sackett felt that <br />this particular section regarding advisory <br />5 <br />