All posts in the topic Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Roseville Issues Forum

Summary

There are 7 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Gary Grefenberg at Nov 27 02:28 UTC

From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Nov 25 22:05 UTC Short link

I find it interesting that Police Chief Carol Sletner has found it to be
ethical and proper to use city resources like the city's email listserv to
recruit the public to lobby in support of her budget requests.  As she says
in the email below, she is asking for the public to "support" her budget.
Since Bill Malinen is her boss and the City Manager, we can only presume
that this kind of lobbying action was taken with his blessing.

Read the email below my signature line.  In my 10+ years of involvement in
city issues, I have to say that this is clearly a first.  This is no
different than using city resources to send out postcards and do a Cable TV
16 promo spot to lobby for her personal budget wishes.  I'll keep an eye on
my mailbox.

As far as what needs to be "supported" I presume this includes her one or
two out of town conferences that she wants to go on at taxpayer expense.
Then add in her people who drive two city vehicles to Woodbury and one to
Maplewood on an almost daily basis, at taxpayer expense.  I presume if you
don't "support" things like this in her budget, are you welcome to come?
Don't get me talking about her failed records management system with all of
the failed promises of a few years ago.

As a side note, where's the chief's budget posted on the city's website?
Well for the last 6 months, it has been nowhere to be found.  I raised the
issue at last night's council meeting for the sixth time.  Maybe we will
finally get some action from staff.  We'll see...

Let's see if the other department heads go and use city resources to promote
their budget requests.  I hope they display a higher level of ethical
behavior.

I wonder what the city would say if I asked to use the city's listserv to
sent out a message to everyone informing them of how Chief Sletner wants the
city to appoint a person as city prosecutor who was the HIGHEST bidder, and
also appears to have more than just a professional relationship with her.
How about the fact that the interview panel who recommend this contract be
approved was made up of the new guy in Community Development, the Chief, and
two people who work for the chief, that I believe were both promoted by her.

Disgusting...

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004

From: Ken Yokanovich Date: Nov 26 00:36 UTC Short link

"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail?"
I read the notice and didn't think twice about it.  Perhaps again proving
that I don't understand quite how to read between the lines.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:05 PM, John M. Kysylyczyn

<john@ksolutionsllc.com>wrote:

> I find it interesting that Police Chief Carol Sletner has found it to be
> ethical and proper to use city resources like the city's email listserv to
> recruit the public to lobby in support of her budget requests.  As she says
> in the email below, she is asking for the public to "support" her budget.
> Since Bill Malinen is her boss and the City Manager, we can only presume
> that this kind of lobbying action was taken with his blessing.
>
> Read the email below my signature line.  In my 10+ years of involvement in
> city issues, I have to say that this is clearly a first.  This is no
> different than using city resources to send out postcards and do a Cable TV
> 16 promo spot to lobby for her personal budget wishes.  I'll keep an eye on
> my mailbox.
>
> As far as what needs to be "supported" I presume this includes her one or
> two out of town conferences that she wants to go on at taxpayer expense.
> Then add in her people who drive two city vehicles to Woodbury and one to
> Maplewood on an almost daily basis, at taxpayer expense.  I presume if you
> don't "support" things like this in her budget, are you welcome to come?
> Don't get me talking about her failed records management system with all of
> the failed promises of a few years ago.
>
> As a side note, where's the chief's budget posted on the city's website?
> Well for the last 6 months, it has been nowhere to be found.  I raised the
> issue at last night's council meeting for the sixth time.  Maybe we will
> finally get some action from staff.  We'll see...
>
> Let's see if the other department heads go and use city resources to
> promote
> their budget requests.  I hope they display a higher level of ethical
> behavior.
>
> I wonder what the city would say if I asked to use the city's listserv to
> sent out a message to everyone informing them of how Chief Sletner wants
> the
> city to appoint a person as city prosecutor who was the HIGHEST bidder, and
> also appears to have more than just a professional relationship with her.
> How about the fact that the interview panel who recommend this contract be
> approved was made up of the new guy in Community Development, the Chief,
> and
> two people who work for the chief, that I believe were both promoted by
> her.
>
> Disgusting...
>
> John M. Kysylyczyn
> K Solutions LLC, owner
> 3083 Victoria Street
> Roseville, MN  55113
> email: <email obscured>
> home office: (651) 484-1384
>
> www.ksolutionsllc.com
> Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roseville Police Department [mailto:listserv@civicplus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:16 PM
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: December 1, 2008, City Council Budget Meeting
>
> This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be
> interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these
> messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by following the
> instructions at the bottom of this message.
> * * * * * * *
>
>
> Because of 2009 City of Roseville budget concerns, the police department is
> asking for your support, attendance, and possible input at the December 1,
> 2008, Roseville City Council Meeting which will be a 2009 Truth in
> Taxation/Budget Review.  The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. in the city
> hall's council chambers.  It's anticipated that the meeting will end around
> 9:00 p.m.  As always, the department thanks you for your continued support.
>
> * * * * * * *
>
> This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be
> interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these
> messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our
> website at:
>  http://www.cityofroseville.com/list.asp?mode=del
> [http://www.cityofroseville.com/list.asp?mode=del]
>
> Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any
> organization without your explicit permission.
>
>
> John Kysylyczyn
> Roseville
> Info about John Kysylyczyn:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1hkSG0bB6eanRYsGwIqygA
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>  Roseville Issues Forum
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>



--
Ken Yokanovich
Roseville, MN
http://reflectorcollector.blogspot.com

From: Dan Roe Date: Nov 26 17:29 UTC Short link

I personally do not find the Police Chief's email to the listserv recipients as
presented in Mr. Kysylyczyn's post to be unethical in any way.  She made no
request that people lobby in favor of a particular expenditure or against a
particular spending cut.  (And even if she had, I do not know whether that
would make it unethical.)  The email was apparently sent to people who had
asked to be included on the listserv because they are interested in police
matters.

When we start castigating people -- including our City staff -- for encouraging
interested citizens to exercise their right to participate in the activities of
their government, then something is very wrong.

And when we do it via issues forums, rather than through our established ethics
complaint process, that is not much better.

From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Nov 26 17:56 UTC Short link

I agree with Mr. Roe that the chief did not ask people to lobby for a SPECIFIC
expenditure by name.  Instead she asked people to lobby for ALL of her
expenditures.

She did not ask people to lobby against a SPECIFIC cut, but instead asked
people to lobby against ANY cut to her department.

I agree with Mr. Roe that people signed up to be on this listserv probably
because they are interested in police matters.  But that doesn’t mean that this
listserv becomes a personal communication tool of the Chief to be used in
whatever way she feels fit to use it.  The listserv is owned by the city and is
paid by the taxpayers of the city.

If you support using this listserv as a partisan communications tool for
lobbying people for or against certain things, or asking them to show up to
support or oppose something, then you have an obligation to allow someone to
use the system who has an opposing viewpoint.  That is a slippery slope that I
don’t support the city going down.

The Chief's email would be no different than Community Development Director Pat
Trudgeon sending out an email asking people to show up to support his HRA
budget request.  Or maybe an email asking people to show up to support his
department's recommendation of a planning issue in Twin Lakes.  Or how about
asking people to show up to oppose a request by Council Member Ihlan to close
some TIF.  The list goes on and on.

I want to make it crystal clear that I was in no way was critical of notifying
the public of the upcoming budget meeting.  Maybe I didn't make that clear, so
let me do so now.  What I am critical of is this listserv being used for
LOBBYING purposes rather than strictly INFORMATIONAL purposes.

What would have been the proper and ethical way to notify people about this
budget hearing is to have an email sent out by the city manager through the
administration department which simply would have INFORMED people of their
right to provide whatever input they desired at the budget hearing coming up
next Monday.  Not an email LOBBYING people to show up to SUPPORT a budget,
which essentially sends the message that if you do not support it, then you are
not welcomed.

Concerning the ethics complaint process, please keep in mind that the ethics
process Mr. Roe voted for keeps ethics complaints against employees under the
city manager a secret.  It is a process that occurs in the back room, out of
eyes of the public, not allowing the public to know anything that is going on.
Then after Mr. Klausing removed all city consultants from coverage of our
ethics rules, that leaves only the 5 city council members and the city manager
publicly accountable under the ethics rules.

While we have ethics rules that cover employees under the city manager, we have
absolutely no process than anyone can monitor to see that they are adhered to.
Secret accountability is no accountability at all.

So the choice isn't the issues forum versus an ethics complaint process. It is
the issues forum versus staying silent and burying your head in the sand.


John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004

From: Daniel Boerigter Date: Nov 26 18:23 UTC Short link

The City of Roseville code of ethics applies to Public Officials. Complaints
concerning employee-Public Officials are reviewed by the City Manager while
complaints concerning non-employee Public Officials are reviewed by the City
Attorney and then possibility the Ethics Commission. The definition of Public
Official is much broader than just the City Council. Commission members,
including members of the comp plan steering committee, are considered Public
Officials.  As such, I believe it is not fair to claim that only council
members and the city manager are publicly accountable under the ethics rules.

Dan Boerigter

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Kysylyczyn [mailto:johnk@usfamily.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:57 AM
To: 'Roseville Issues Forum'
Subject: Re: [RIF] Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief

I agree with Mr. Roe that the chief did not ask people to lobby for a SPECIFIC
expenditure by name.  Instead she asked people to lobby for ALL of her
expenditures.

She did not ask people to lobby against a SPECIFIC cut, but instead asked
people to lobby against ANY cut to her department.

I agree with Mr. Roe that people signed up to be on this listserv probably
because they are interested in police matters.  But that doesn't mean that this
listserv becomes a personal communication tool of the Chief to be used in
whatever way she feels fit to use it.  The listserv is owned by the city and is
paid by the taxpayers of the city.

If you support using this listserv as a partisan communications tool for
lobbying people for or against certain things, or asking them to show up to
support or oppose something, then you have an obligation to allow someone to
use the system who has an opposing viewpoint.  That is a slippery slope that I
don't support the city going down.

The Chief's email would be no different than Community Development Director Pat
Trudgeon sending out an email asking people to show up to support his HRA
budget request.  Or maybe an email asking people to show up to support his
department's recommendation of a planning issue in Twin Lakes.  Or how about
asking people to show up to oppose a request by Council Member Ihlan to close
some TIF.  The list goes on and on.

I want to make it crystal clear that I was in no way was critical of notifying
the public of the upcoming budget meeting.  Maybe I didn't make that clear, so
let me do so now.  What I am critical of is this listserv being used for
LOBBYING purposes rather than strictly INFORMATIONAL purposes.

What would have been the proper and ethical way to notify people about this
budget hearing is to have an email sent out by the city manager through the
administration department which simply would have INFORMED people of their
right to provide whatever input they desired at the budget hearing coming up
next Monday.  Not an email LOBBYING people to show up to SUPPORT a budget,
which essentially sends the message that if you do not support it, then you are
not welcomed.

Concerning the ethics complaint process, please keep in mind that the ethics
process Mr. Roe voted for keeps ethics complaints against employees under the
city manager a secret.  It is a process that occurs in the back room, out of
eyes of the public, not allowing the public to know anything that is going on.
Then after Mr. Klausing removed all city consultants from coverage of our
ethics rules, that leaves only the 5 city council members and the city manager
publicly accountable under the ethics rules.

While we have ethics rules that cover employees under the city manager, we have
absolutely no process than anyone can monitor to see that they are adhered to.
Secret accountability is no accountability at all.

So the choice isn't the issues forum versus an ethics complaint process. It is
the issues forum versus staying silent and burying your head in the sand.

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Roe [mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [RIF] Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief

I personally do not find the Police Chief's email to the listserv recipients as
presented in Mr. Kysylyczyn's post to be unethical in any way.  She made no
request that people lobby in favor of a particular expenditure or against a
particular spending cut.  (And even if she had, I do not know whether that
would make it unethical.)  The email was apparently sent to people who had
asked to be included on the listserv because they are interested in police
matters.

When we start castigating people -- including our City staff -- for encouraging
interested citizens to exercise their right to participate in the activities of
their government, then something is very wrong.

And when we do it via issues forums, rather than through our established ethics
complaint process, that is not much better.

Dan Roe

Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5cZAbhhk6FyqUF6A1lIiZL
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

John Kysylyczyn
Roseville
Info about John Kysylyczyn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6UwXkizE1I7gimzAI9AiXe
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Nov 27 00:53 UTC Short link

Dan, you made my point exactly.  Thanks for quoting the language.

The Police Chief falls under the phrase, "Complaints concerning employee-Public
Officials are reviewed by the City Manager..."

This is a fancy way of saying that they are not PUBLICLY accountable under the
ethics rules.

Yes, it is absolutely fair to claim that only council members and the city
manager are PUBLICLY accountable under the ethics rules.  You hit the nail on
the head.

All others are privately held accountable, behind closed doors, away from
public scrutiny or review.  That doesn't seem too accountable to me.
Certainly, they are not held accountable to the public.  I doubt they are even
held accountable to the city council members who sign their checks.

It reminds me of the double secret probation stuff that the Office of = Lawyers
Professional Responsibility does, which is why they earned a D- in a report
KSTP-TV did a few years ago.


John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Boerigter [mailto:dboerigter@yostbaill.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:17 PM
To: 'Roseville Issues Forum'
Subject: Re: [RIF] Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief

The City of Roseville code of ethics applies to Public Officials. Complaints
concerning employee-Public Officials are reviewed by the City Manager while
complaints concerning non-employee Public Officials are reviewed by the City
Attorney and then possibility the Ethics Commission. The definition of Public
Official is much broader than just the City Council. Commission members,
including members of the comp plan steering committee, are considered Public
Officials.  As such, I believe it is not fair to claim that only council
members and the city manager are publicly accountable under the ethics rules.

Dan Boerigter

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Kysylyczyn [mailto:johnk@usfamily.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:57 AM
To: 'Roseville Issues Forum'
Subject: Re: [RIF] Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief

I agree with Mr. Roe that the chief did not ask people to lobby for a SPECIFIC
expenditure by name.  Instead she asked people to lobby for ALL of her
expenditures.

She did not ask people to lobby against a SPECIFIC cut, but instead asked
people to lobby against ANY cut to her department.

I agree with Mr. Roe that people signed up to be on this listserv probably
because they are interested in police matters.  But that doesn't mean that this
listserv becomes a personal communication tool of the Chief to be used in
whatever way she feels fit to use it.  The listserv is owned by the city and is
paid by the taxpayers of the city.

If you support using this listserv as a partisan communications tool for
lobbying people for or against certain things, or asking them to show up to
support or oppose something, then you have an obligation to allow someone to
use the system who has an opposing viewpoint.  That is a slippery slope that I
don't support the city going down.

The Chief's email would be no different than Community Development Director Pat
Trudgeon sending out an email asking people to show up to support his HRA
budget request.  Or maybe an email asking people to show up to support his
department's recommendation of a planning issue in Twin Lakes.  Or how about
asking people to show up to oppose a request by Council Member Ihlan to close
some TIF.  The list goes on and on.

I want to make it crystal clear that I was in no way was critical of notifying
the public of the upcoming budget meeting.  Maybe I didn't make that clear, so
let me do so now.  What I am critical of is this listserv being used for
LOBBYING purposes rather than strictly INFORMATIONAL purposes.

What would have been the proper and ethical way to notify people about this
budget hearing is to have an email sent out by the city manager through the
administration department which simply would have INFORMED people of their
right to provide whatever input they desired at the budget hearing coming up
next Monday.  Not an email LOBBYING people to show up to SUPPORT a budget,
which essentially sends the message that if you do not support it, then you are
not welcomed.

Concerning the ethics complaint process, please keep in mind that the ethics
process Mr. Roe voted for keeps ethics complaints against employees under the
city manager a secret.  It is a process that occurs in the back room, out of
eyes of the public, not allowing the public to know anything that is going on.
Then after Mr. Klausing removed all city consultants from coverage of our
ethics rules, that leaves only the 5 city council members and the city manager
publicly accountable under the ethics rules.

While we have ethics rules that cover employees under the city manager, we have
absolutely no process than anyone can monitor to see that they are adhered to.
Secret accountability is no accountability at all.

So the choice isn't the issues forum versus an ethics complaint process. It is
the issues forum versus staying silent and burying your head in the sand.

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Roe [mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [RIF] Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief

I personally do not find the Police Chief's email to the listserv recipients as
presented in Mr. Kysylyczyn's post to be unethical in any way.  She made no
request that people lobby in favor of a particular expenditure or against a
particular spending cut.  (And even if she had, I do not know whether that
would make it unethical.)  The email was apparently sent to people who had
asked to be included on the listserv because they are interested in police
matters.

When we start castigating people -- including our City staff -- for encouraging
interested citizens to exercise their right to participate in the activities of
their government, then something is very wrong.

And when we do it via issues forums, rather than through our established ethics
complaint process, that is not much better.

Dan Roe

Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5cZAbhhk6FyqUF6A1lIiZL
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

John Kysylyczyn
Roseville
Info about John Kysylyczyn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6UwXkizE1I7gimzAI9AiXe
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Daniel Boerigter

Info about Daniel Boerigter: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danielboerigter

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3rrpgjai9GRyv6JhE64ab9
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Nov 27 02:28 UTC Short link

I agree with Dan Roe's opinion that the Police Chief's e-mail to certain
listserve recipients was not unethical.  At the same time and more
importantly, however, I am not comfortable with a paid city department head
using her time and our resources to develop, maintain, and use a city e-mail
list to encourage recipients to 'support, attend, and possibly give input'
on that department's  budget request to the City Council.

This practice somehow seems to be stepping over the line between a city
employee's public service responsibility to provide information to city
officials and residents, and a lobbyist's role in organizing a campaign
to have voters persuade their elected officials to raise taxes to fund a
department's budget request.

I guess I would see the police chief's actions not as unethical but as
unprofessional for a civil servant.  I think it might be wise for the City
Council--not the Ethics Commission--to develop policy parameters for future
practices of this kind.

In the meantime I really appreciate and applaud John Kysylyczn's efforts at
raising this and other city budgetary issues.  I may not always agree with
how John frames an issue or his occasional use of innuendo and invective,
but his efforts at informing Roseville residents of city actions and their
policy implications provide a necessary service to Roseville's stakeholders.

I also want to thank Councilmember Bob Willmus for posting the links to
additional budgetary information.

As a postscript, my reaction to this issue is probably influenced by what
appears to be residents' difficulty in obtaining substantive budget
information in a timely manner from city managers regarding the proposed
property tax
increase, not to mention the fact that apparently not one Roseville
city employee used this vehicle of community participation, the Roseville
Issues Forum,  to inform us of Monday's Tax Levy meeting at City Hall.  I
know that our property tax statements included this information, and that
the Roseville Review recently had a paid ad, but these forms of notification
are all required by state law, I believe.  I also saw today's Star Tribune's
two-paragraph mention of Monday's meeting in the Town Square section, and
appreciate that city staff probably had prepared a press release which
resulted in this Star Tribune mention.

Add to the topic Unethical use of city resources by the Police Chief [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Roseville Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Roseville Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.