2013-12-11 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

to, let’s say, inform Ms. Veincent of this policy? What does your supervisor have to do? Just here’s the policy, sign this paper, and that’s it? MS. CRAWFORD: No, we made it—when this policy was distributed to the existing employees, each supervisor met with those employees, went over it, explained it to them, and then asked them—gave them an opportunity for questions. However, they had also had an opportunity to make comment to the union prior to that, and then they met and it was explained to them and they signed it. And now any new employees who come in, that’s actually done in our Finance Department human resources office, not in the division. It’s the same thing. We explain it to them very carefully and then ask them to sign the disclosure form. MR. HISASHIMA: Okay, thank you. MS. VEINCENT: Can I say something, please? MR. BALSIS: Yes. MS. VEINCENT: When I started my employment with the County, we were all given the set of instructions and what was considered to be conflicts of interest, and until recently we had, due to low or no attrition, long-time employees, no turnover. And so until recently, baby boomers have been retiring, and now with all of the new employees, there is a need to once again bring up the Code of Ethics. And so I think that that is a good thing to do at this time. The second thing is that even if I were to be removed from the area that I’m assessed in, and I’m not sure about the feasibility of rearranging appraisers every time someone moves, because you need to learn your area in order to do equitable, fair, and proper assessments. I can be taken out of the area that I appraise, but that still would not stop a person without scruples to make a change on their individual record. It can still be done. And that’s why I feel like the checks and balances that we have in place now should be enough to mitigate that. MR. HENRICKS: You understand in the County Code, though, we’re not looking at checks and balances. We’re looking at the action of the person that does the actual action and whether that is a conflict. Even if there are many checks and balances, it doesn’t matter at all, because it’s the initial action we’re looking at. That’s what the Code requires—to look at what the person did and not if he’s being checked or not checked. Okay? So your act of actually making that en masse evaluation, is that a conflict or not—that’s what we’re looking at. That alone. MR. ADAMS: So if I might, just to come back to the Code, because that’s our responsibility—in 2-84 it states, in 2-84(a), no officer or employee shall take any official action directly affecting, and then it goes into the one’s, two’s, and three’s. Well, official act or official actions is defined as a decision, recommendation, approval, disapproval or other action, including inaction, which involves the use of discretionary authority. I think