2009-09-23 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Planning Department. My spouse is employed by the County Department of Environmental Management. My husband has nothing to do with my County contracts with Planning, nor does he perform any of the duties of my contracts. However, under the wording of Proposal 1, (5) (c), it seems that the fact that my spouse is an employee of the County would now exclude me from qualifying from any future County contracts with any department. I do not believe that was the intended purpose of the amendment. Furthermore, Proposal 2, Section 2 -85, seems to allow for a County agency to contract with an employee under certain stipulated criteria. I am unclear how the amendment in Proposal 2 relates to the amendment in Proposal 1. I feel that Proposal 1, (5) (c), is worded in such a way that these amendments does not allow for any further consideration. I ask that when the Board consider these amendments, it reconsiders the wording of Proposal 1, (5) (c), so that it will not arbitrarily exclude all County spouses from contracting with the County if the contract is deemed to be awarded fairly and without a conflict of interest. There are various methods this could be achieved, and I trust that with minor rewording the amendment would achieve the desired intent to ensure fair treatment in awarding of contracts. I recognize the value of transparency in government, and I welcome ethical reforms that will ensure the public monies are spent wisely and contracts are awarded fairly to qualified contractors. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Gloor. And just to point out, my intention for this Board is to look at this communication from the Mayor closer at our next meeting, so you're welcome to come back next meeting or submit your public testimony to the Board. GLOOR: Okay, thank you. CHAIR: Next up, Mr. Tim Rees. REES: Good morning, Ethics Commission. CHAIR: Good morning. REES: Sir, I made a mistake on that thing, too. I wanted to list one of the items I wanted to speak on, I should have listed it as 5. d. (2), the moot petitions. CHAIR: Okay. REES: The first one I wanted to testify on this morning, though, is Communication 2009- 66, Mayor Kenoi 's letter, and I speak against this. Most of the provisions in his letter one problem was trying to locate that letter. I had a hard time. And I'm glad to hear you're going to be looking into it more at your next meeting. Hopefully I don't know if you folks can do the hyperlinks on your website, if you're capable, like the County Council does it. That's extremely helpful so people can be informed about what you're discussing here today. However, I did acquire it, and there's some misstatements in here. And generally he the part that I'm against is this giving you folks adjudicatory powers. There's a lot of philosophical problems with that. I question whether any of you have been properly trained, except perhaps maybe Ms. Schoen, in evidentiary law, and even if rd