Laserfiche WebLink
cited, our third request would be for a formal hearing. And that request would be from Ms. <br />Crawford pursuant to Code of Ethics Section 2-87 formal opinions, and also the Board of Ethics <br />Rule 6.2 that a formal hearing can be requested by the person charged, Ms. Crawford. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Thank you. At this time I’d like to ask Mr. Drutar to come forward. I think that <br />we’ll continue with Mr. Drutar’s statement before we make a determination if we’re going to <br />continue. Am I correct? Any disagreement with the Board? <br /> <br />Mr. Drutar: If I may request initially a brief executive session so we can talk about some of <br />these things because they are matters of confidentiality that I can discuss with the Board and then <br />we can go back to an open session. Would that be agreeable? <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Any thoughts from other people on the Board here? <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: I’m not aware of the procedures, of those kinds of procedures. Either he’s going <br />to make a statement on his petition or he’s not. <br /> <br />Ms. Schoen: And my understanding is that your rules provide that either the Board is going to <br />hear this in closed session or it’s not. So you cannot have part of your petition in closed session <br />and then the other part not. It’s one or the other. <br /> <br />Mr. Drutar: Ok. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: On the petition itself it says open hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Drutar: Yes, sir. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: And I’m going to ask that you abide by your employment rules of confidentiality <br />and stick to the issue of the petition. <br /> <br />Mr. Drutar: Absolutely. I understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: I’d like to iterate or reiterate on what we’re going to do. But I’d like to say that <br />we’re not getting into the facts of what happened. We don’t want to get into the facts of what <br />happened. Like I said earlier, the appeal process can take care of the facts themselves. I wasn’t <br />talking about the facts that occurred. I’m just talking about the legal position of whether she has <br />the legal authority to interpret the County ethics code and make a violation, to call, that has been <br />violated. And that’s the only thing, and that’s a legal position, that’s not a factual position. And <br />he’s, I’m reading between the lines because many of these people file petitions and they don’t <br />understand what they’re filing. So what we have to do up here, if you’ve been in court, you <br />understand too. When you have people who go pro se, they don’t know what they’re doing so <br />you have to sit there and determine what we can glean out of this to be the issue. And the only <br />thing that I can glean at the issue is that the only thing for us is whether Nancy Crawford has the <br />power to make a ruling on an ethics commission violation, an ethics code violation. Does she <br />have that power? And that’s all. And that’s a tricky and legal issue and we do not get into any <br />factual position of what occurred between him and the department at all. So therefore, I think <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />