Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
with Orange County to take care of the ball fields. This department head would be approving <br /> the company that hires him. <br /> The Board agreed that for Article 2, Section 1 #2, the new language will be, "unless <br /> approved in writing by the County Manager." <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the disclosure statement. He said that he is not <br /> sure what a Senior Staff Disclosure Statement that no one gets to see does in providing a <br /> benefit in an ethics policy. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that if senior staff is worried about people knowing who their <br /> spouse is, and if it is a closed personnel document, then there should not be any problem. <br /> Frank Clifton said that there is a difference between the policies of elected officials and <br /> senior staff. The staff records remain sealed. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz said that if the County is going to have a disclosure statement <br /> that is part of an ethics policy, then the County Commissioners should be able to see what that <br /> disclosure statement says. He said that the disclosure statement should be tailored so that it <br /> gives the public the information that needs to be known and does not violate the aspects of <br /> senior staff employment situations that should not be made public. <br /> John Roberts said that he and the Manager would need to discuss what would be in a <br /> disclosure statement for public view. He did not consider a disclosure statement something for <br /> the public. <br /> Frank Clifton said that some of this information is already known because it is in the <br /> personnel file. As long as the personnel record does not escape the personnel file, it is ok. If <br /> there is a public document, it will have to be a lot blander and would not give very much <br /> information. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that when he first came on this board there was a claim that <br /> a department head owned substandard housing and had it listed in the name of his domestic <br /> partner. This was not pursued, but there was no policy one way or the other. He said that he <br /> had not thought of this as a public document, but he only thought of it as a standard of <br /> conduct. He is not adverse to having a public document, but he agrees that it will have to be <br /> more bland. <br /> Commissioner Hemminger agreed that the disclosure statement should not be a public <br /> document. She would like to see the form the employees are being asked to sign before <br /> making a decision. <br /> Frank Clifton said that staff can develop this document and bring it back for the Board <br /> of County Commissioners' review. <br /> Commissioner Foushee agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs and <br /> Commissioner Hemminger. <br /> Chair Pelissier said that there is consensus that the Board wants to see the form and <br /> that it would not be for public knowledge. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked if it would be acceptable to ask spouses, etc. since it <br /> would not be open to the public. Commissioner Foushee said that she would not agree with <br /> that since there is a difference between elected officials and employees of the County. <br /> Chair Pelissier said that she understands that this is an ethical issue of conflicts of <br /> interest. <br /> John Roberts said that he can see Commissioner Jacobs' point that it is easy to <br /> conceal a business in a spouse's name. He could put in generic family members and not <br /> identify who the spouse or child is but only the businesses with which they are associated. <br /> The Board agreed with this. <br /> Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 3, Article 2 section 2 under <br /> "compensation", she suggested that there be written approval. Also, on Article 2, section 5 <br />