Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Adams: I know that the ordinance...the new ordinance provides for that <br /> kind of situation...you'll be able to tell them that you've submitted <br /> a petition as a part of the bid so...I would...yeah go ahead Mr. <br /> Chair. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: You know on the issue of...I'm just looking at the new statute <br /> right or ordinance...sorry...2-83(c) and it say an <br /> employee....officer or employee of the County or a business in <br /> which an officer or employee or the officer or employee's <br /> immediate family has a controlling interest may contract for goods <br /> or services with any County agency provided that and you look <br /> two it says the officer or employee has obtained an opinion from <br /> the Board. To me that's a County officer or employee. So I would <br /> think that procedurally we really may be need to have the <br /> employee get the clearance...but I don't know Mr. Yoshimoto...do <br /> you have a comment on that? <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: The statute says what it says Mr. Chairman. I also think that <br /> because the petition was filed and it involves the employee...the <br /> fact that the Board is moving forward with requesting that the <br /> employee come forward it think is a good thing. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Right. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: So I think it will be consistent so long as the Board is able to ask <br /> questions of the employee. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: But they don't have to file...I agree. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: Procedurally we get to the same point. Now if the Board decided <br /> to just go without having the officer or employee that would be a <br /> problem. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Right. Thank you for that. Alright any further discussion? That <br /> was questions...do I have a motion? <br /> Mr. Adams: I would move that we...we're gonna have to make sure this is done <br /> right...that we table? <br /> Mr. Goodenow: I would say continue. <br /> Mr. Adams: Continue this petition until our next meeting. <br /> 10 <br />