2009-12-09 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Ms. Gentry noted that to arbitrarily eliminate vendors on the basis of being married to a County official or employee would be unfair treatment, as they should be entitled to conduct their business. Ms. Nicholson suggested they deal with the Contracts section first before moving to Fair Treatment. The Mayor's proposal in Contracts eliminated everything but the last paragraph. Ms. Lum asked whether this section was the only place that dealt with sealed bids in the Code, and Ms. Schoen said yes. However, all government purchases for goods and services must follow the State Procurement Code, which typically deals with contracts over $25,000. There are other procedures to follow for contracts less than that. Ms. Schoen said that under the current Code, a contract is allowed if it is for below $10,000 and the officer /employee does not have a controlling interest. However, there are other Code provisions to consider. For example, if an officer /employee has a contract with the County, he cannot exercise official action regarding that contract. This is in the Code's Conflicts of Interests section. The Board cannot look at provisions on a piecemeal basis, because other provisions would apply. Ms. Nicholson asked if there was a sealed bid requirement for a project costing under $10,000, and Ms. Schoen said no, not under the Procurement Code. However, the purchasing department would still need to go through the competitive bidding process. Ms. Nicholson said it looked, in getting to the heart of the matter, like the Mayor is proposing that no County employees, their spouses, or family members be eligible to bid on any County contracts. The Board members all agreed this was worrisome. Ms. Gentry said it would not be fair treatment to prohibit the spouse of a County employee from contracting with the County on a matter totally separate from the other spouse's County job, and the others agreed. Ms. Nicholson said the Mayor seemed to be bothered by the public perception, and this perception was also reflected in the emailed testimony received. She liked what a previous testifier (Mr. DeLima) had said at an earlier meeting: the Code is good but need s to be beefed up. She would rather support that than totally bar someone with useful expertise from contracting with the County. The Board discussed the recent newspaper article about Kama`aina Pumping, which was again the lowest bidder and won a County contract via the sealed bid process. They did not understand why people would cry foul when the bidding was sealed and everyone treated the same. If, however, the low bidder had information that other bidders did not, then a law violation had occurred. Ms. Schoen pointed out that the current Section 2 -85(3) provides for posting a notice of intent to award a contract. In such a case, the Board would review the notice, look at the officer /employee's position and what the contract is about, whether the officer /employee would rd