Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Yoshimoto: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Wiseman: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Wiseman: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Wiseman: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Wiseman: <br />obviously couldn't go beyond that...so there needs to be clarity in <br />terms of what we're doing because on the one hand if we're <br />saying... But this is the Boards opinion. This is not in the code <br />right...so the Boards opinion has been...if you no longer in office <br />or employee, the Code of Ethics does not apply to you. But if you <br />go beyond...four, five, six years...and you know you're in office <br />then. It becomes unclear. So I don't know if the Board wants to <br />weigh that in it's... <br />Right. I believe Corp. Counsel issued an opinion that jurisdiction <br />ends. That under the code it only applies to current members. Let <br />me find that. You're just saying that's our internal... <br />I don't recall if it was Corp. Counsel's opinion but I do recall the <br />Board making that opinion in past petitions, right so. I'm just <br />saying that this might be an opportunity to clarify rather than rely <br />on opinion. We just put it in the code. If we're going to be <br />suggesting amendments, that we say. So that way, it's clear. <br />I think it does say in Section 2-79 right. Prescribe standards of <br />conduct for the guidance of county officers and employees prohibit <br />conduct involving officers and employees. <br />Now my concern is...for example...an employee. Who's not <br />subject to any term of office, right? It's going to go on maybe <br />twenty years or ten years. Alright. So, I mean, that employee has <br />a grievance today. It can wait for five, six years to file that. It's <br />totally prejudicial to the person being filed against. Cause they <br />may no...no longer be there or even if they're there...their facts <br />are old...the files are gone...I mean memories are faded. That's <br />my concern. It's an inordinate amount of time, I think. <br />I support your proposed amendment there. And it does also state <br />right...nothing herein shall bar proceedings against a person who <br />by fraud or other device, prevents the discovery of a violation. <br />Oh yeah...yeah. <br />So it's not...you know if there's fraud well it's still open. <br />Yeah statute is bypassed if there's fraud... <br />So I think...I would... Would you like to make an amendment <br />that we... <br />Yeah. I'd like to... <br />24 <br />