Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1002 Documents Submitted at Mtg r~o?ogl ~. ~ 2nJ- (e~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are bold underlined. RECITALS: ]. The City of Ashland is committed to the highest ethical standards for its public officials. 2. As a statement in that regard, in addition to any standards set forth by the state, Ashland has had its own ethics provision applicable to public employees for more than 25 years. 3. As a sign of continuing commitment to the highest ethical standards Ashland desires to extend application of its ethics provisions to appointed and elected officials. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 3.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: SECTION 3.08.020 Code of Ethics. A. Declaration of Policv. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials, including elected officials, appointed officials and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established a Code of Ethics for all public officials, whether paid or unpaid. The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all public officials by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City of Ashland. It is also the purpose of this Code to assist public officials in determining the proper course of action when faced with uncertainty regarding the propriety of a contemplated action, thereby preventing them from unwittingly entangling public and private interests. Through adoption of this Code the City hereby expresses its intent to maintain high ethical standards in the City service, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of City public officials. B. Responsibilities of Public Office. Public officials are agents of public purpose and are engaged for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state and the City, and thus to foster respect for all government. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern. C. Dedicated Service. All public officials of the City should work to support the political objectives expressed by the electorate and the programs developed to attain those objectives. Appointive officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the standard for their positions by the appropriate authority. Page I of5 FILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME-llchristebILOCALS-I1Templ-Ethics PROPOSED changes for SECOND READING.doc Public officials should not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so, and they should work in full cooperation with other public officials unless prohibited from so doing by law or by officially recognized confidentiality of their work. D. Fair and Equal Treatment. 1. Interest in Appointments. Canvassing of members of the Councilor Mayor, directly or indirectly, in order to obtain preferential consideration in connection with any appointment to the City service shall disqualify the candidate for appointment except with reference to unpaid positions filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council. 2. Use of Public Propertv. No public official shall request or permit the use of city-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the use of such employee in the conduct of official business or as a specifically defined benefit in compensation of employment. 3. Obligations to Citizens. No public official shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen except as otherwise permitted by law or ordinance. E. Conflict of Interest. No public official, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of that public official's official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that public official's official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial, interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association. Nothing herein prohibits a public officer from engaging in any business, profession or employment that is permitted or required as regards the composition of a Board, Commission or Committee, (e.g. Planning Commissioners engaged in real estate pursuant to ORS 227.030 or Building Code Board of Appeals, [AMC 15.04.200] members engaged in specific trades). Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for guidance: 1. Incompatible Emplovment. No employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for private interests when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of that employee's official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that employee's official duties. 2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No public official shall, without proper legal authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of the City. Nor shall any public official use such information to advance their financial or private interest, or the financial or private interest of others. 3. Gifts and Favors. No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the form of service, loan, thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge is interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the City; nor shall any such employee (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence the employee in the discharge of their duties, or (2) grant, in the discharge of their duties, any improper favor, service or thing of value. 4. Representing Private Interests Before Citv Agencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of private interests before any agency of the City. An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party, unless the employee is representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed Page 2 of5 FILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME-llchristebILOCALS-IITempl-Ethics PROPOSED changes for SECOND READING. doc official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is appointed or in any action of proceeding before another board, commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is appointed. No public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action by the City. 5. Contracts with the Citv. Any public official who has a substantial or controlling financial interest in any business entity, transaction or contract with the City, or in the sale of real estate, materials, supplies or services to the City, shall make known to the proper authority such interest in any matter on which that public official may be called to act in an official capacity. The public official shall refrain from participating in the transaction or the making of such contract or sale. A public official shall not be deemed interested in any contract or purchase or sale of land or other thing of value unless such contract or sale is recommended, approved, awarded, entered into, or authorized by the public official in an official capacity. 6. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any employee or appointed official who has a financial or other private interest, and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the Council, shall disclose on the records of the Councilor other appropriate authority the nature and extent of such interest. 7. More Restrictive State Law Provisions. Nothing in this ordinance relieves or excuses public officers and employees from compliance with more restrictive state laws applicable to the particular public position, (e.g. Planning Commissioners are subject to more restrictive Conflict ofInterest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.) F. Political Activitv. No employee in the administrative service shall use the prestige of their position in behalf of any political party. No employee in the administrative service shall orally, by letter or otherwise, solicit or be in any manner concerned in soliciting any assessment, subscription or contribution to any political party; nor shall an employee be a party to such solicitation by others; nor shall an employee take an active part in political campaigns for candidates while in the performance of duties in an official capacity. No public official shall promise an appointment to any municipal position as a reward for any political activity. G. Aoolicabilitv of Code - Emolovees. When an employee has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the City Administrator, who is charged with the implementation of this code for an advisory opinion, and be guided by that opinion when given. The employee shall have the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisioo(s) of the code before such advisory decision is made. All such requests for advice shall be treated as confidential. This code shall be operative in all instances covered by its provisions except when superseded by an applicable statute, ordinance or resolution, and each statute, ordinance or resolution action is mandatory, or when the application of a statute, ordinance or resolution provision is discretionary but determined to be more appropriate or desirable. H. Aoolicabilitv of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they Page 3 of5 fILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME-llchristebILOCALS-IITempl-Ethics PROPOSED cbanges for SECOND READING. doc should apply to the Mayor for a determination and City Council will be informed of the inquiry. The official seeking a determination shall have the opportunity to present any facts they deem relevant to the determination. They shall also have the opportunity to present any argument they may have as to what they deem an appropriate determination. The Mayor may request the City Attorney to provide an advisory opinion based upon the facts presented. The determination of the Mayor as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be final, unless a majority of the Council calls up the determination for review by the full Council at the meeting following the determination.. I. Definitions: 1) Employee - for the purposes of this section, the term employee shall mean one who is hired and paid a wage or salary to work for the City other than elected or appointed officials. 2) Appointed Official - for the purposes of this section, the term "appointed official" shall mean a person who is appointed to serve on one of the City's boards or commissions and shall also mean the City Administrator and City Attorney. 3) Elected Official - for the purposes of this section, elected official shall mean one who is elected by the registered voters of the City of Ashland to serve the city and shall include: the Mayor, the city councilors, the city recorder, the municipal judge and the parks commissioners. J. Municival Court Judl!e. Notwithstandinl! any other vrovision of this ordinance, the conduct of the Municival Court Judl!e, an elected official. shall be l!overned bv the Rules of Judicial Conduct of the Orel!on State Bar (2006 version) svecificallv incorvorated herein and made a vart hereof bv this reference. K. Sanctions. Violation of any provision of this section, determined after notice and an opportunity to be heard, shall constitute cause for disciplinary action for an emvlovee, or removal of an avvointive officer. Discivline or removal actions shall be in addition to. and not in lieu of. any other City initiated sanction or venalty authorized bv Title I of the Ashland Municival Code. SECTION 2. Section 3.08.010 (B) of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: B. Scove and Coverage. These personnel policies shall apply to all employees of the City of Ashland exeept fer eleeted ameillls. Section 3.080.020 contains volicies avvlicable to elected officials and avvointive officers. These policies are in addition to and in no way replace, modify or infringe upon existing union contracts or other agreements between the City and its employees. Any existing employee union contract or agreement with a non-union employee group is hereby incorporated by reference as further statement of the City's personnel policy with regard to wages, hours and conditions of employment. (Ord 2826 85, 1998) The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of ,2007, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ,2007. Page 4 of5 FILENAME \p C:\DOCUME-I\christcb\LOCALS-l\Temp\-Ethics PROPOSED changes for SECOND READING.doe Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard AppicelIo, Assistant City Attorney Page 5 of5 FILENAME Ip C:IDOCUME- I IchristeblLOCALS- I ITempl-Ethics PROPOSED changes for SECOND READING. doc Ashland City Council, We appreciate the changes suggested and those planned for implementation by the Police Executive Research Forum report. A more comprehensive Conducted Energy Device (or CED) policy was needed, and we respect this attempt to make adjustments to the current, or lack of, current policy. We applaud this action, not only ?<; a restructure of procedure, but also as an outreach to our community on and off of SOC' s campus. Changes such as, mandatory training for all personnel with CEDs and the placefLl0nt 0: recording devices on CEDs are absolutely necessary for a safe environment, considering past APD issues involving CEDs. We also applaud the mandatory training APD will require for its officers. We feel this sets a precedent that has the potential to create a safer perception in regards to all CED type weapons. In the past, it has been clear that APD has not fully respected the power of this weapon. We feel this change in policy' could be the first step to increasing awareness for this issue. But within this change we also see some parts of the policy are lacking. The pending policies for training police officers on CED use and safety are not currently adequate. We ask for an independent training to be developed by APD encompassing not only medical training, but cultural training and other potential risks that victims of CED use may cause. This should include information from multiple studies, including those critical of CED use, such as the ACLU and Amnesty International ifat all possible - - First, we would ask that in almost all instances CEDs be treated as or similarly to an officers duty weapon. We feel it is imperative to reserve the use of CEDs to only the most serious of situations, those posing direct threat of injury or death, and not as a coercive force to gain compliance. To these ends we ask that in any case that a CED is un-holstered it be logged in a police report including just cause for the un-holstering of the weapon, in the same way that the removal of an officers duty weapon would. We ask this in order that situations such as those currently flooding our local news outlets about events involving the Medford Police Department can be avoided here in Ashland. However, more importantly we ask this to make clear to the officers of APD, the Ashland Public, as well as Southern Oregon University Students how seriously the use of, or threatened use of, force is taken by APD and the City Council, and that it is only used in the most extreme of circumstances. We feel that this will substantially aid the Ashland Police Department in changing its image as a militarizing, and divisive force within our community to a uniting, and positive community member and is vital in allowing APD to be an effective community policing force. Second, based on findings by the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, we ask that APD independently test each CED they purchase before using it in the field. There is enough controversy surrounding Taser International, and the manufacturing of their product, to warrant verification of each product. Any CEO that does not meet the voltage standards should be returned and replaced with a more serviceable CED. We would also ask that on every occasion a CED is used, tl1e officer be.immediately placed on paid administrative leave as they currently would had they used their duty weapon; pending the results of an independent use of force review. No officer should be on duty until it has been determined that the they have acted, and are acting in accordance to APD Policy, with an emphasis on the just cause for use of force, as well as that all reasonable precautions were taken to ensure the health and well being of both the officers involved and the suspect. We ask this because of the potentially deadly health and safety implications involved with the use of CEDs tragically seen in the recent past here in Ashland, and acknowledged in the PERF Report Update presented to the City Council on their last meeting. According to section 3.023, APD will be allowed to use CEDs on young children 12 years and older. Based upon certain criticisms, the use of CEDs on children still in their developmental stage could be hazardous, possibly causing stunted growth, learning disabilities and post-traumatic stress. On top of this officers are not trained to use CEDs on anyone of this age, due to. liability issues during Taser International's training process. This creates an unsafe environment for suspects who are not considered adults. We ask that this section be an1ended to disallow the use of CEDs on minors. We also ask that section 3.028 be amended so that it does not contradict section 3.027, so that officers and medical professionals are not be instructed by APD Policy to dispose of used CED probes, but that they be logged into evidence as per section 3.027. We ask that lessons be learned by the tragic death of Nick Hanson and that his legacy may be used to effect positive change in our community, to the ends of more responsible and humane police practices. Attached to our written testimony are sample motions for our requests. I make a motion to direct the chief of Police to implement a policy including the revision of APD CED policy 3.028 to properly instruct medical professionals and APD officers to properly log used CED probes into evidence. That APD CED Policy include a full third party review of the use of force in instances that CEDs are used, that an Officer upon the use of force at the nearest reasonable juncture be placed on paid administrative leave and undeliake counseling in similar fashion if the officer had discharged their duty weapon. That on each instance a CED is removed from its holster it be logged into the police report along with justification for the upholstering and the potential use of force, that section 3.023 be changed to not allow the use of any CED on any person who reasonable looks under the age of 18. !~Y1iZC Brian J. Fox I 1401 Oregon St. No 2~2 Ashland, OR 97520 f-c1 ~ ~'\ 'h:=- y ,-. 1\ ~ I ~ o lztt)/1 ~ o. "L Philip M. Shilts 396 Idaho St. Ashland, OR 97520 10/2/2007 February 13,2006 Section: Front Edition: Final Chaser Page: Al STUDY RAISES CONCERNS OVER TASERS' SAFETY Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic A study measuring electric shocks from a Taser stun gun found that it was 39 times more powerful than the manufacturer claimed, raising new questions about the weapon's safety. The study, published last month in the peer-reviewed, Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser's electric jolt in which the company did not participate. "The findings show the energy delivered by the weapon to be considerably understated by the manufacturer," the Journal study said. "These findings place the weapon well into the lethal category." Officials with Scottsdale-based Taser International Inc. condemned the findings, saying they are exaggerated, erroneous and "beyond the laws of physics." They pointed to a test conducted last week in response to the Journal article. A lab hired by Taser found that the weapon produced power that was significantly less than what the Journal study found and met all specifications. Taser contends that the author of the Journal study, electrical engineer James Ruggieri, does not have the technical expertise to make conclusions about stun guns. Taser is suing Ruggieri for defamation over his claims in a presentation and testimony in a wrongful- death case last year that Tasers can cause fatal heart rhythms. In a separate finding, the Army also concluded last year that Tasers could cause ventricular fibrillati0n, the irregular heart rhythm characteristic of a heart attack. A memorandum from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where the Army develops, tests and evaluates weapons, said, "Seizures and ventricular fibrillation can be induced by the electric current." At issue was whether soldiers should be shocked with the stun guns during training exercises, as Taser recommends. The Army's occupational health sciences director determined that Taser is an effective weapon but added in the February 2005 memo that "the practice of using these weapons on U.S. Army military and civilian forces in training is not recommended, given the potential risks." Taser for years has maintained that its stun guns have never caused a death or serious injury. Company officials say the guns save lives, reduce injury and save millions of dollars in legal costs because they prevent deadly confrontations. But since 1999, more than 167 people have died after police Taser strikes in the United States and Canada. Of those, medical examiners have cited Tasers in27 deaths, saying that they were a cause of death in five cases, a contributing factor in 17 cases and could not be ruled out in five cases. Several law enforcement agencies have filed lawsuits accusing Taser of misleading them about the stun gun's safety and c~~im that the company failed to conduct adequate tests before selling the weapon. Some police departments have delayed or halted Taser purchases because of safety concerns. Taser denies these claims and says its record of safety is bolstered by dozens of medical and university studies and by the company's experts. Law enforcement officials and testing experts agree that there is no widely accepted standard for measuring Tasers. Studies have shown various results. In May, for example, an international testing laboratory hired by Canadian authorities initially reported that two stun guns were significantly more powerful than the manufacturer specified. The guns also fired at different levels of power. The stun guns were used on a man who died after being shocked by Vancouver, British Columbia, police in 2004. Taser challenged the test last week, and the laboratory backed off its results. Officials with the lab, Intertek ETL Semko, said testing protocols provided by the police differed from those of the stun-gun manufacturer. As a result, Intertek said the tests could not be relied upon. Bruce Brown, deputy com;uissioner of a British Columbia agency investigating the police role in the Va,1cou',er death, said his agency wants to enlist Canada's National Police Research Center to conduct a rigorous study of the stun gun's power. "We've sent people to the moon, so there has got to be a way to come up with a peer- reviewed (standard)," he said. The 50,000-volt Taser works by shooting two darts up to 25 feet. The darts are connected to wires that deliver a burst of electricity that is designed to instantly immobilize a suspect. The gun also can be used as a handheld device, without the darts, by touching two metal probes directly against a person's body in what police call a "drive stun." The shock from a Taser is measured in electric pulses. Tasers typically used by police deliver IS to 19 pulses a second in a five-second interval, although the gun will continue firing without interruption as long as the trigger is held down. Tasers operate at 50,000 volts, but Taser says the stun guns do not pose an electrical safety risk because the pulse's current is too low and its duration too short to affect internal organs, including the heart. Ruggieri's study found that the Taser's pulse was more powerful and longer than the gun's specifications indicate. Ruggieri studied a Taser M-18, which is nearly identical to the Taser M-26 used by police except it has less power. Taser specifies that the M-18 produces 10 pulses a second at 1.76 watts per pulse. Ruggieri said his tests showed th" Taser produced 14 pulses a second at 50 watts per pulse. . Ruggieri said it took him months of research to conduct and complete the tests. He said he relied on Taser's research and previous stun-gun studies to create a verifiable methodology for testing the Taser. His findings are based on how electric current penetrates the body. When established electrical standards were applied to the stun gun's electrical discharge, Ruggieri said the current could be fatal. He said measurements of the electric current showed that, according to electric safety standards, the gun had a 50 percent risk of causing ventricular fibrillation. Taser Vice President Steve Tuttle called the claim "ludicrous" and said it is "clearly refuted by the fact that well over 100,000 human volunteers have been exposed to the Taser discharge without fatality." Taser maintains that skin tissue blocks electric current and is equivalent to 1,000 ohms of resistance. But Ruggieri said skin tissue breaks down as electricity is applied, decreasing resistance and increasing the impact of the shocks on the human body. "This creates a runaway effect of increasing current with decreasing resistance," Ruggieri said. An independent electrical engineer who reviewed the Journal study at the request of The Arizona Republic said Ruggieri's conclusions were credible and based on scientific principles. Robert Nabours, who has degrees in electrical engineering from Stanford and the University of Arizona, said scientific and medical evidence support Ruggieri's claims that skin tissue breaks down when subjected to electric pulses. Among the evidence are findings from Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctors. Ruggieri focused on the Taser in its "drive stun" mode. He said measurements of the current found that the power was about 39 times greater than the manufacturer's specifications. Taking into account the lowered resistance of skin tissue, Ruggieri said the stun gun generated 704 watts of power as opposed to 18 watts. Ruggieri contends that one of Taser's main claims of safety, that the duration of the electric pulse is too short to cause injury, could not be proven. He said his tests of the current showed that duration of the pulse also increases as resistance drops. The lab hired by Taser, Exponent of Phoenix, could not replicate Ruggieri's results. Exponent, which has offices throvghout the country, is a consulting firm that employs scientific and engineering ~;(perts who, like members of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, often serve as expert witnesses in court cases. Exponent electrical engineer Ashish Arora said Ruggieri reported 17 times more power than the Taser he tested. Arora said that in his tests, the power of the stun gun measured at or below specifications. Arora said the pulses Ruggieri measured could also not be verified, even when resistance was dropped. He said that caused concern. He said he would have expected some similarity in the results. But he said the tests results "were completely different." There were differences between Exponent's and Ruggieri's tests, both involving how the gun was charged and how the current was measured. Ruggieri said he used a battery specified by the manufacturer to mirror a real-world setting. He changed the battery after each jolt to ensure that the power did not degenerate. Exponent used a power supply to charge the battery. Ruggieri said a power source could limit the amount of power going into the gun in a way that a battery would not. Ruggieri also measured the output using two high-voltage meters attached to each of the Taser probes, which he said gave more-accurate readings. Exponent used a single meter. Arora said the single probe and battery wouldn't change the results. Taser has repeatedly attacked Ruggieri's credibility since he made a presentation critical of the stun guns to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in February 2005. Taser claimed his presentation was based on "junk science" and "propaganda" and that his conclusions have been disputed by numerous government, university and medical studies. Some of Ruggieri's claims were independently verified, including his assertion that Taser had misapplied Underwriters Laboratories standards in suggesting the stun gun could not cause ventricular fibrillation. Taser sued Ruggieri in November, several months after he announced the Journal findings at an engineering conference in Chicago. In a news release last year, Taser described Ruggieri as a high school dropout with no medical training. Ruggieri said he left high school to attend college in New York. He later obtained a master's degree in computer science from the University of Phoenix. Ruggieri's resume shows that he is a professional engineer with licenses in five states. He said he has investigated electrical accidents for federal agencies and helped write electrical safety standards for top electrical laboratories and commissions. Taser officials challenged the academy journal, calling it an "obscure bulletin," saying none of the peer reviewers was qualified to assess the findings. "That unfortunately allowed Mr. Ruggieri to utilize inappropriate science and flawed mathematics in attempts to support his unsupportable conclusions," Taser's Tuttle said. Journal Editor Marvin Specter said the academy is affiliated with the National Society of Professional Engineers and is made up of experts in several engineering disciplines. The Journal lists a technical review committee for Ruggieri's study that includes 20 engineers, including one well-known Taser consultant. The reviewers' identities are confidential and have not been released, Specter said. Specter said Ruggieri's paper went through a rigorous peer-review process before being published in the biannual journal. In an interview last week, Ruggieri said Taser has launched personal attacks to distract from the real issue. "This isn't about me. It's about the findings, the study," he said. Reach the reporter at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8694. Art Mural Statement Lloyd Matthew Haines October 2, 2007 Ladies and Gentlemen: The rehabilitation ofthe ODOT property under the Lithia Way Viaduct, including placing murals on public structures, is a Vision of what is possible in unsightly and dangerous urban areas. It can be a model for other parts of Ashland and other Cities as well. The placement of Murals on public or private structures is not permitted by Ashland's anti-mural ordinance. This antiquated statute no longer benefits Ashland's artistic and creative spirit. I offer the Murals, lighting and rock work to Ashland as a gift, if the City wishes to accept it. If requested, I will remove the artwork until the City decides whether or not this donation is in Ashland's best interest. Although I have apologized for the manner in which this installation occurred and have accepted the financial and legal consequences of my actions, the placement of murals in Ashland could not have occurred under current law I request the City consider whether this creation is artistically significant, beautifies the City and is of value to the public. If so, please accept this gift. Thank you.