2009-12-09 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

quite as restrictive as the Mayor's proposals, yet addressing real concerns and issues. She personally would rather not gut the whole Contracts section, but instead sharpen it up. Ms. Schoen said they could propose that any and all contracts entered into with an officer or employee, or their spouse or dependent children, must be approved by the Board or have any conflict waived. Ms. Nicholson said the contracts which are to come before the Board could be delineated and that her preference is to eliminate gray areas in the Code. Ms. Schoen said that if the Board likes the certification form that the State is now using, it could recommend that the County use a similar form. The Board discussed whether the new language in the Mayor's first proposal would bar an officer /employee's spouse or dependent child from contracting with the County. The term "controlling interest" was confusing. Ms. Schoen said they could ask the Mayor what he means. The Chair called for a recess. 11:06 a.m.: The Board recessed. 11:18 a.m.: The Chair called the meeting back to order. Ms. Lum wondered whether the Mayor's proposed language for the Contracts section, the new (a), could be modified and used in place of the Mayor's proposed language for Fair Treatment, Section 2- 83(c). Ms. Gentry suggested less restrictive language which would allow an officer /employee to contract with the County, but not if the contract was with his own department. And if the officer/ employee had a controlling interest in the company, it could be mandatory to get a decision from the Board. Ms. Nicholson said that if a sealed bid was involved, it would not make sense to do it this way. Ms. Nicholson said she just noticed that in the Mayor's proposed Contracts section, the language regarding contracts to procure or dispose of goods or services was deleted. She wondered what the intent was in totally removing it. Ms. Lum noted that on the "Provider's Standards of Conduct Declaration" the State is using, there was no area to check off whether the contractor is a State employee or performs similar services as a State employee. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the State allows employees to bid on contracts, and Ms. Schoen said yes, and that the County's Ethics Code provisions basically follows the State's. The State Ethics Commission has issued opinions on cases involving employees who questioned whether there would be conflicts if they contracted with the State to perform certain services. The opinions are fact - specific. One school of thought in drafting ethics legislation is to be very specific in defining conduct to be prohibited. Another school of thought is to be as general as 31