Minutes 05-06-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Jacobs said that he has some concerns about the type of conflict of interest standards for senior staff. He would like to bring this back for discussion. The Board agreed to bring this back to a work session for discussion. Frank Clifton said that there are specific state laws that address staff issues on this topic and he will include these. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 6, page 8, and the reason to believe and probable cause. He wants to understand when you need to have reason to believe and when there needs to be probable cause. John Roberts said that the language is straight from the School of Government. Commissioner Yuhasz would like to discuss this further. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 3—e and that it suggests that all of the code of ethics be applied to other statutory boards. He is not sure that all of this needs to apply to these boards. He would not want to narrow the pool of potential applicants for advisory boards as a result of having to disclose things that are not necessarily as crucial in their deliberations. Commissioner Nelson said that this exact concern caused many people to resign from state boards and commissions, but it is important that the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment hold these ethical standards. He said that he supports keeping the language. Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Nelson. Frank Clifton suggested having these standards apply to all statutory boards. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would like to see clarified what would happen when someone violated the code of ethics. She has concerns about the word, "investigation." She suggested just having a public hearing because "investigation" has a very different implication. John Roberts said that the SOG model does not address this. His recommendation is that if the Board has reason to believe that one of its members violated part of the code, the investigation could be handled by a designated staff person. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would like the section clarified because she could see this being misconstrued. John Roberts said that "reason to believe" would be the standard for initiating the investigation and "probable cause" would be the finding at the hearing. He suggested the following language for Section 6: "If the majority of the Board has reason to believe that one or more of its members has violated a provision of the ethics code, it may direct the County Attorney or County Manager to open an investigation into the matter and bring the findings to the Board at a public hearing. Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to see more specificity about the investigation being opened by a majority vote of the County Commissioners at a regular meeting. John Roberts amended his language: "If, by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners, the Board has reason to believe that one or more of its members has violated a provision of this code of ethics, it may direct the County Attorney or County Manager at a regular meeting to open an investigation into the matter." Frank Clifton said that most of this is for procedural violations and he has an issue because he takes an oath. He would take his concerns to the District Attorney. John Roberts said to delete the County Manager in this section. Commissioner Jacobs said that he was surprised how unclear the language is in this code and he suggested the following language: "If upon investigation of a violation of this code of ethics, the Board concludes that a violation of a criminal law may have occurred it shall refer the matter to the local District Attorney." The way it reads now, the Board is going to somehow wander into criminal investigation.