|
appearance that our county employees are doing something improper? And we do have
<br />the sealed bid process. I think it is very fair. I don't know any county employees
<br />personally, other than perhaps the council staff, that they see me quite often. But I don't
<br />have a dog in this fight, as people say. I think that government's focus with regards to
<br />government, county employment, should have to do more in the area of moonlighting
<br />and again, only when that begins to affect an employee's performance. Now there's a
<br />public interest, right? And now sorry to say that. No one wants to bring that up,
<br />because if you've ever flagged for traffic on the streets, it's actually harder for our
<br />policemen to stand there. It's harder to stand on your feet, holding a sign and directing
<br />traffic, than it is to run a marathon or to jog. And that's just a fact. And what you find
<br />out is you get a lot of ankle and foot injuries occurring.
<br />CHAIR: Mr. Rees, just a reminder. We try to limit this to three minutes, so if you want to
<br />cover any other agenda items, go ahead and do that.
<br />REES: Okay, so I would hope that you either postpone this or pass the provision of that
<br />bill that gets rid of the favored treatment where people shepherd a project through county
<br />government. The rest of that, until somebody can point out that it's really been a
<br />problem, I don't see that we need to hurt our families. And Mr. Onishi, at the council,
<br />did present very good examples of that, where family members may be coaches and such.
<br />And just to wrap that up, sir, if I can. If the county council wishes to go to start singling
<br />out police department, lifeguards, you're opening a can of worms. Because why be
<br />very careful if they suggest something to you along those lines. Thank you, sir. Number
<br />S, my real concern here is I've spoken before to the prior Board about how can I testify
<br />intelligently when I don't see a copy of the petition. I understand the state has passed the
<br />laws. I think they're dead wrong. There are really good in fact, they did an entire
<br />reversal on their position about not naming complainants and who's being complained
<br />against, and it's interesting to read. There's a very good law review article on this where
<br />one of these students just makes the greatest argument. He cites to U.S. Supreme Court
<br />law, case law. It does hinder me now on Petition No. 2010 -09. So what I have to rely on
<br />is what I've seen in the paper. And that's a terrible way to get your information in
<br />general. But the situation here, to me where I see a potential problem, is if these
<br />allegations - -what were reported in the paper are supportable- -then it sounds to me as if
<br />this is a penal this could very well be a penal offense and prosecuted. And then I look
<br />at it and I say, well, are you folks going to function in this area almost as a mock trial,
<br />and what benefit would that serve? So it's kind of like a jurisdiction thing. It seems to
<br />me that someone could review this, such as the Prosecutor's Office, and say, well there's
<br />some meat here, one way or the other, and we may wish to prosecute this. It's a penal
<br />offense. It may not be criminal, where you go to jail, but nevertheless, I wonder if your
<br />folks' interactions on this would get in the way of a proper penal proceeding. I have seen
<br />situations that concern me, where a person comes up here during an open petition
<br />proceeding and they say they don't want to answer the question. Well, you folks- -
<br />unfortunately you don't have the power to cite them for contempt of the Board. And if
<br />someone comes up here and just says my attorney advised me not to answer that
<br />question, what benefit is served in the community?
<br />CHAIR: Okay, just to be clear, you're speaking on items S, the petitions, and you're in
<br />support of publicizing the names of the petitioners?
<br />3
<br />
|