My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-08-09 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2016
>
2016-08-09 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/15/2016 3:18:43 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:18:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Robinson: And what is the interest rate normally charged. <br /> Ms. Akiyama: 3% <br /> Mr. Robinson: 3%. Okay. <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: Do we hear a motion somewhere? <br /> Mr. Robinson: I find that because of the limited involvement of Ms. DeCoito...no <br /> involvement in the approval process that there would be no conflict <br /> of interest. That's my motion. <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second? <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Before I second...I...it says here petition to provide...to inform, <br /> but I think you also asking if it's appropriate to have a company <br /> RAD on the list right...I mean...I just add to your motion if you <br /> would consider that in saying that there's not a problem with RAD <br /> being on their list. <br /> Mr. Robinson: And my motion would include that there would be no problem <br /> with the company of RAD being on the list of contractors that <br /> would be operating as long as...and hopefully you'll do the <br /> disclosure that we're not recommending...this is just a list...we <br /> make not preferences or references. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: I'll second that. <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? <br /> Mr. Adams: I would. I guess I am...I like to use the word troubled...I am <br /> troubled that we have this list...I'm not troubled that the office is <br /> trying to help these folks out. I think that's great. The problem is <br /> that may not be office's responsibility when determining who the <br /> contractors might be because there isn't any specific process or <br /> procedural safe guards in identifying who those folks are. You ran <br /> us through how you add to the list...I get it...and that seems the <br /> common sense to me. The problem is that...there's a potential <br /> problem for me I guess with that and you're gonna take a look at <br /> that and add to that which is fine. So where am I going with that? <br /> I think...as a part of this...have you ever done any follow up to <br /> determine whether or not the contractors that are chosen by the <br /> folks that engage in this...participate in this program...do most of <br /> the contractors come off of the list? Only a percentage of them? <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.