Title
Board of Ethics Complaint: Davin Pickell v. Diedre Garton, 3.35 (5) (f) 2
Body
Sec. 3.35(13) MGO provides that, if the Ethics Board determines that a person has violated any provision of the ethics code, then the Ethics Board makes a report to the Common Council, with any recommendation regarding sanctions. In Pickell v Garton, Legistar #24342, the Ethics Board found a violation of Sec. 3.35(5)(f)2, MGO, but recommended that no sanction be imposed.
Legistar #24342 was one of three complaints filed by Mr. Pickell involving Ms. Garton. All three of the complaints contained exactly the same facts, but each complaint alleged a violation of a different section of the Ethics Code. In the excerpt of the draft minutes, below, Legistar #24342 is referred to as “Item 6” on the Ethics Board agenda.
Excerpt from Draft Minutes
Items 5, 6 and 7, Complaints, were considered together. The Complainant, Mr. Pickell was not present. The Respondent, Ms. Garton was not present but Attorney Rick Petri appeared on her behalf. In response to a question from a Board member, Assistant City Attorney Brist stated that under Section I.V.7 of Ethics Board Policy Manual, the Board “may” dismiss a complaint if the complainant does not appear.
Assistant City Attorney Brist stated that all three complaints were based on the same alleged act, that Ms. Garton failed to disclose her membership in the 201 State Foundation, on her statement of ethics forms, but that each complaint alleged that this alleged action was a violation of three separate sections of Sec. 3.35. He state that, under the concept of “multiplicity”, that if the Board were to find the single act of failure to disclose violated three separate sections of the ethics code, it would be appropriate that only one penalty should be imposed.
Attorney Petri stated that he had attempted to contact Mr. Pickell to discuss a resolution of the complaints but that Mr. Pickell did not respond to Attorney Petri’s le...
Click here for full text