|
concern to anybody. And if it allows the amount that he was referring to for the
<br />skateboard or the extra bags, then I would say there's no extortion. However, if that
<br />bill--unless the drivers themselves are doing something untoward--but if the County
<br />Code provides for it, specifically allows it, I would be down here saying hey, I don't think
<br />the guy's right, or I can see I read it, it doesn't allow for those extra charges. I can say
<br />I can see where he's coming from, and I want to have you guys not dismiss this case at
<br />initial review, and I want to have you look into it, bring the County people in here and
<br />explain if there's a numerical discrepancy or if the item's not even there and it appears
<br />they're not allowed to lawfully charge that fee he's referring to. And I'm getting my
<br />information right here, from his oral testimony. I was trying to read and get my thoughts
<br />together for the other items on here, and it's very difficult. So my concern is if this Board
<br />is going to have a rule that says this petition is confidential until it's been brought
<br />forward here at this date publicly, how can people intelligently testify on the matter?
<br />And I hope that some of you would consider that and say yeah, there does seem to be a
<br />little bit of a problem there. It tends to defeat the general public from coming in and
<br />testifying. And that's an issue that happens--I know you folks look into when council
<br />members in the past have done things, it tends to either intimidate people or deter people
<br />from coming forward and presenting their views to deliberative bodies. And I think
<br />enough said on that one, other than I honestly don't think you should have the power to
<br />dismiss under those circumstances, at the first initial review, until the general public has
<br />had an opportunity to read the complainant's own words in their complaint and then be
<br />able to testify about that. And I will be bringing that up to the OIP. I don't think the OIP
<br />understands quite a bit of the different aspects of the Sunshine Law, Chapter 92, to these
<br />different boards. It's kind of hard to squeeze County Council, Ethics Board, different
<br />performance duties. It's really hard to have the same set of rules apply straight across
<br />the board. So I do want to confer with the OIP on these matters. Moving on to 6a.,
<br />unfinished business. This also has to do with the matter where I see the Ethics Board
<br />maybe you're correctly using jurisdiction as a reason to dismiss cases, or maybe you're
<br />not. And I hope dismiss is the right word. Anyway, you get rid of them, right? And in
<br />the court systems, jurisdiction, when a question arises, that is a matter that I understand
<br />this is not a judicial court here but that is a matter that is extremely important for both
<br />parties to fairly argue the issue, once the question comes up. It is not something to be
<br />taken lightly. The courts don't want to waste their time, as boards shouldn't be wasting
<br />their time, on matters that more properly come under another venue, another
<br />jurisdiction. However, I don't see that matter being allowed to be argued here, or even
<br />casually deliberated by the two parties. It seems as if the Board says we've got a
<br />jurisdiction problem here, we're out on this one. Now that basically is what happened
<br />with the union situation, the presentation by the union folks at the civics, and it also
<br />happened in another one, this number here, number 2012 -07, the complaint against Mr.
<br />Blas. Now personally I think Mr. Blas, whatever happened there, it's a mystery to me.
<br />I'm glad it's more or less over with. But I'm very concerned with the precedents being
<br />set here or the continuance of a procedure that I see as being very faulty, detrimental to
<br />the welfare of our community, and the view that people have of their government the
<br />positive view that somewhat gets detracted there. Ms. Schoen, if I may mention this, at
<br />your last meeting where the Fred Blas complaint came up, she cited a court case, and she
<br />said this is case law. I read through it. It's Doe vs. State Ethics Commission, 373--I
<br />forget what book this is, I'm sure it's here somewhat, I can't find it. But I read through
<br />
<br />
|