2010-01-13 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

qualified businesses or people to provide services. And where there is less competition, the price goes up. Ms. Gentry noted they had focused mainly on small contracts such as teaching a class or being a lifeguard. However, conflicts are going to arise on the big contracts, and due diligence needs to be in place for those. Ms. Lum said she agreed conflicts need to be avoided on the big contracts, but hoped the small contractors were not stomped on in the process. The members agreed they liked having the language about obtaining approval by the Board of Ethics, although there could be a timeline problem between bidding on a contract and having it reviewed by the Board. Ms. Lum said a person could foresee the potential of a contract down the road and bring it before the Board beforehand for review. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the certification form that the State is using for contracts needed to be included in their proposals. Ms. Schoen explained that it would be part of the contracting process. The Board could propose the certification form to the Office of the Corporation Counsel, which is cast with reviewing contracts and devising routing procedures. Council approval was not required to use the certification form. Ms. Nicholson said the certification form is a way of addressing some of their concerns and would help avoid conflicts of interest. Ms. Schoen said the proposal could be worded to state that any and all contracts entered into between an officer /employee and the County must not be executed without proper certification, or similar language. Ms. Lum noted the sample State certification form was entitled "Provider's Standards of Conduct Declaration." Ms. Schoen explained that the language she drafted for Section 2 -85 articulates what she understood as the Board's consensus, in that they did not automatically disapprove of an officer /employee contracting with the County if it involved another department; it addressed their concerns about special duty police officers; the section on the competitive bidding process was kept; and review by the Board was added in case there was any question about contracting. She said the Board could suggest this language or any part of it in the response to the Mayor. Ms. Nicholson suggested that in their response, they address each item the Mayor wants to change, state their concerns about each item, and provide examples. They should express their agreement that the language needs stiffening up, but also share with him their concerns and recommended language. This way, they would be stating not only their concerns but how they would address them, and also provide language for him to consider. The Chair said that for the Mayor's Proposal 2, they agreed the word "is" should be inserted where it was inadvertently left out of Section 2 -85. However, the main parts of