2013-12-11 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

MS. CRAWFORD: That’s how the department sees the issue of appraisal of a— MS. ADAMS: --Conflict of interest in a financial— MS. CRAWFORD: --conflict of interest, with a financial interest related, is because they are impacting directly their individual property. MR. ADAMS: Right, so the interpretation, then, of Section 2-84 out of the County Code, out of the Code of Ethics, Article 15, where it says no officer or employee shall take any official action directly affecting a business or undertaking in which that officer or employee has a substantial financial interest, with the definitions as we understand them, meaning substantial financial interest and official action directly affecting-- meaning, for example, their home, your interpretation, the department’s interpretation then, is that that refers to an individual property. MS. CRAWFORD: Well, and I would also say that taking official action is—their recommendation of and model for a neighborhood, which is passed on to someone else who actually reviews it, makes the final decision, and inputs that into the system—I guess I would say that I didn’t see that as the official action. I felt the official action is taking place at a higher level, that the appraiser is making a recommendation regarding land models for the various neighborhoods within their zone, and in my opinion, due to the further requirements that would ultimately result in anything that might impact their home, it means that they’re not the ones taking the official action on their home—real properties in which they have a financial interest. MR. ADAMS: I guess where I was going with the question has to do with how narrowly do we interpret what the Code says, what the section says. I think that the department is very narrowly identifying both official action interpretation and substantial financial interest interpretation. And I have to say I’m not sure that I’m in total agreement with the department’s interpretation. And finally, before the judge says something, I don’t think that—I think that what we say, actually, has precedence. MS. CRAWFORD: Absolutely. I agree. MR. BALSIS: Mr. Henricks? MR. HENRICKS: Yes, my question is if the recommendation is not official action, has it ever been overturned or changed? MS. CRAWFORD: Stan? MR. SITKO: Yes, it has.