Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> 1) BOCC members may resign positions as directors, officers, or governing board members <br /> of any nonprofit covered by the new law if that nonprofit receives outside agency funds <br /> from or otherwise contracts with the County. <br /> 2) The BOCC approves 1.2% of general fund county revenue to be awarded to outside <br /> agencies and authorizes the County Manager to allocate the funds. If the BOCC does not <br /> agree with any allocation, that particular allocation could be addressed through a budget <br /> amendment at which time a commissioner with a conflict could be easily excused or <br /> recused. This would eliminate direct involvement in an award by a covered commissioner. <br /> 3) An alternative suggested by the UNC School of Government is to adopt "a practice of <br /> stripping non-profits from (the) general budget ordinance and then including those <br /> nonprofits later via budget amendments. That procedure allows conflicted-out board <br /> members to vote on the general budget ordinance but recuse themselves from amendment <br /> voting." Similar to the first two options, utilizing this approach would eliminate the risk to <br /> individual board members. This could be done at the same meeting at which the budget is <br /> adopted because North Carolina Generl Statute (NCGS) 159-15 allows amendments, with <br /> few limitations, at any time after the budget ordinance is adopted. <br /> 4) Another alternative suggested by the UNC School of Government is to "vote on pieces of <br /> the budget in stages prior to adopting the final budget ordinance. While these votes are not <br /> binding, they allow the board to make individual policy decisions as they work through the <br /> budgeting process. This preliminary vote process offers a potential strategy for handling <br /> conflicts arising from a member's financial interest in a particular budget provision. Under <br /> this approach, the Board would take a preliminary (nonbinding) vote on the budget <br /> provision that involves the Board member's interest and excuse the interested member <br /> from voting on it. If the matter passes, then it can be incorporated into the final version of <br /> the budget ordinance. When the board member later votes on the final version of the <br /> budget ordinance, it will be clear from the preliminary vote that the member's vote was not <br /> necessary to approve the provision that involves his or her financial interest." This <br /> approach still carries risk due to the fact that impacted commissioners are still voting on <br /> the problematic item even though they earlier recused themselves. The new law prohibits <br /> any involvement. <br /> The first three options eliminate risk to covered commissioners. In addition to minimizing or <br /> eliminating risk to covered commissioners, options one through three also eliminate even the <br /> appearance of impropriety under the new law. As noted above, option four does not eliminate all <br /> risk. <br /> FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item. <br /> SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated <br /> with this item. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal <br /> impact associated with this item. <br /> RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss the options presented <br /> and any others that may be discussed, make a selection, and provide any other direction to staff. <br />