Laserfiche WebLink
employee is accepting and so it's under circumstances where it <br /> could reasonably inferred that the gifts intended to influence the <br /> officer or employee in the performance of the official duties or <br /> intended as a reward. And so in that definition, I think the <br /> perception is there that there is that potential okay. But that's not <br /> end of the question. The question then is whether or not this looks <br /> like it influence or reward an official action. To me, that was the <br /> reason for me asking about the potential grant possibilities <br /> potential. And so I say that for me that's a no, are you operating <br /> your official capacity that's a yes. And then finally when we take <br /> a look at our consideration of travel as a gift for an officer or <br /> employee of the County in the past. Is there a benefit to the <br /> County in this case? And I think reasonable to consider, to <br /> conclude that yes there is a County benefit by your and by the <br /> other members who I don't see on here, but assuming that they're <br /> members of the County whether officers or employees by them <br /> also receiving this funding to attend in this situation, attend this <br /> event in this situation. So again this is a narrow in the sense that <br /> we're talking about this event and you're attending and the other <br /> officers or employees attending. For me, all those checks that you <br /> would normally, that you would take into account would follow. <br /> Now I didn't come with those on my own, not that smart. These <br /> came up from, these come from the State Ethics Commission and <br /> in the past we have taken those considerations. We've taken those <br /> factors into consideration and I would suggest that we would do so <br /> again as we consider this particular motion. And in my case in <br /> looking at those factors I think that they are all answerable in the <br /> way that allows you to receive that funding in an ethical way. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Any further comments or discussion? No I couldn't have said that <br /> better myself. We have a pending motion to issue an advisory <br /> opinion stating that there is no violation given the facts and <br /> circumstances presented in 2016. Is that re-stating the motion <br /> sufficiently gentlemen for you? <br /> Mr. Adams: 2016-01. <br /> Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to issue an advisory opinion that states there is no <br /> violation in Petition 2016-01. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. <br /> Mr. Paleka: Thank you very much. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Thank you. We are now moving to unfinished business. <br /> 18 <br />