Browse
Search
Minutes - 19820201
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Minutes - 19820201
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2017 4:51:34 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:33:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/1/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 02-01-1982
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
' 0044'x . <br /> doubt have had over-runs here in terms of building projects that con- <br /> tractors undertook for you. I know they have Las Angelos, Durham, all <br /> over the United States where you don't complete a project in the time <br /> you anticipate completing it. So the project went over 5 days; of <br /> course, there was a penalty for that. And I think most contracts there <br /> is a penalty for going over. Anyway, the job was completed; it was <br /> completed satisfactorily predicated on the on the admission of the <br /> person-for whom the job was being done. The property owner— And after <br /> this job was completed, Mr. Smith received a letter from the Director <br /> of this program, stating that he would not be eligible to participate <br /> in the program anymore. In other words, he was banned. There were two <br /> criteria he established for banning him frown the program; 1) Pre- <br /> dicated on a memo that was in a folder, not in his personnel folder, <br /> but another folder that Mr. Smith was refused when he asked for this <br /> Information under the proper Act; the second criterion was a letter that <br /> had been received from the City of Durham stating that Mr. Smith had <br /> been banned from program participation in Durham. Now follow this area <br /> - _very carefully. The letter that came to your director from Durham <br /> arrived and was requested prior to certification of Mr. Smith to partic- <br /> I-pate in the City Development Program. That letter was on file. <br /> You note the date. The date indicates that it was received before Mr. <br /> Smith certified to participate, if this was, if this had been one of <br /> the criteria for denial then why was he ever granted the right to par- <br /> ticipate initially? In as much as this data preceeded his participation. <br /> If the memo was which was written by your Rehab Specialist_ Was a <br /> criterion that had objective intent of bettering the performance of <br /> contractors it seems to me that Mr. Smith would have been made aware of <br /> this and that some steps would have been made to let him know,they were <br /> dissatisfied with something and or the basis of that corrective measures <br /> would have had to have been instituted or participation would have been <br /> denied in the future. This was not done. This memo was hidden and the <br /> assistant to your director had to go and find this memo and bring it out <br /> at the time we were in the office and say 'This is why I believe he was <br /> denied the right to participate.' That memo you should have which became <br /> a philosophy or an approach to prioritizing work at the time Mr. Smith <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.