Laserfiche WebLink
evaluation of employee's performance...that's very tenuous <br />ground...that's protected information and it's up to the employee <br />themselves to determine whether or not they consent to that <br />discussion be made in public. Under the Law...that's a private <br />discussion. The contracting party here is Department of Public <br />Works so going forward it would be the Director of the <br />Department of Public Works to make the evaluation assessment as <br />to whether or not the contractee is performing you know up to their <br />expectations...if they are...then great we go forward but if they're <br />not...we have various steps and procedures in place to either...the <br />employee to have the opportunity to increase their output or if the <br />department head makes a determination that is just not beneficial <br />for the County moving forward then we have a provision in the <br />contract that we can allow that contract to terminate. The final <br />thing I just wanna say is the justification or the rationale for the <br />reason as to why the Finance Director has to reevaluate the <br />contract...is specifically related to the availability of funds...when <br />the County enters into a contract we only the County can only <br />guarantee funds for that particular fiscal year. County fiscal year <br />runs from July 1 to June 30th of each year. In this case, the <br />contract in question, supercede or went beyond the June 30th <br />deadline...so come July 1, there's no guarantee that funds will be <br />available...so it's at that time by law...by operation of law...the <br />Finance Director has to look at all those multiyear contracts and <br />make a determination as to whether or not the funds are available. <br />And that's the process and that's why that language is specifically <br />stated in the contract. I hope I was able to answer some of your <br />questions. <br />Mr. Goodenow: Okay. Any other...I guess we still need a motion technically...but <br />any other questions? <br />Ms. Sumner -Mack: <br />Mr. Brilhante: <br />I just have a couple ball questions if you don't mind. Thank you <br />very much for your testimony...you've answered in part one of the <br />questions I had which was how many years of this employee <br />was...what was her seniority status? <br />It was my understanding at the time she submitted her resignation <br />she can qualify for retirement... so she met the minimum <br />requirements for retirement at the time. <br />Ms. Sumner -Mack: Oh but you said you didn't know the number of years...maybe <br />that's privileged information as well. <br />Mr. Brilhante: As to how many specific years? <br />17 <br />