7A - Ethics Policy - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 2 Dawn Butner From: Stangl, Alexis[AStangl @lmc.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:52 PM To: Dawn Bittner Subject: Policy on contacting commissioners Hello Dawn, I am writing in response to your online research question submission regarding people contacting planning commissioners at their home. You are looking for guidelines on developing a policy that would deal with applicants, developers, or those opposing an application calling, contacting, visiting, etc. planning commission members at home. The difficult truth in serving on a board or council is that sometimes people calling and visiting your home is part of the territory. I think it would be difficult to craft a policy that significantly limited people's ability to contact members of the public body. (If the board members are being threatened, harassed, stalked, etc., the board members should call the police. Certainly, simply because a person is on a public board does not mean they should be subjected to these sorts of issues.) I am not saying that the city cannot adopt this sort of policy, but it should be carefully considered and the city should work closely with the city attorney. One thing you will need to consider in considering this sort of policy is the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act(MGDPA). Minnesota Statute 13.601 (part of the MGDPA) provides what data is public for elected and appointed officials. Subdivision 3 of this statute says this: Subd.3.Applicants for appointment. (a) Data about applicants for appointment to a public body collected by a government entity as a result of the applicant's application for appointment to the public body are private data on individuals except that the following are public: (1) name; `, (2)city of residence, except when the appointment has a residency requirement that requires the entire address to be public; (3)education and training; (4)employment history; (5)volunteer work; (6)awards and honors; (7) prior government service; and (8)any data required to be provided or that is voluntarily provided in an application for appointment to a multimember agency pursuant to section 15.0597. (b)Once an individual is appointed to a public body, the following additional items of data are public: (1) residential address; and (2)either a telephone number or electronic mail address where the appointee can be reached, or both at the request of the appointee. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), any electronic mail address or telephone number provided by a public body for use by an appointee shall be public.An appointee may use an electronic mail address or telephone number provided by the public body as the designated electronic mail address or telephone number at which the appointee can be reached. As you can see, the data practices act makes residential address and a telephone and/or email address public information. So any policy the city might adopt cannot contradict this law. If the city treats its board members as city employees, then the personnel provisions of the MGDPA would also need to be considered.The city attorney can assist the city in determining what provisions would be relevant to consider in adopting a policy. The city would also need to carefully consider what penalty it may impose if a person violates this sort of policy, particularly if the city would like the penalty to relate to issuing the permit or approving the application. Generally, there are only certain reasons permits can be denied. Again, the city attorney can help the city figure out appropriate penalties. I am providing this information for general informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal 2/9/2010