Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Robinson: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Robinson: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Mr. Yoshimoto: <br />contract was established and what the work is going forward on the <br />EnerGov...which has been extremely helpful I think that we had <br />that last time we could have addressed it a lot better. I do have <br />concerns on the contract itself specifically the reference to the 76- <br />77 (16) I feel that that doesn't address this but does it rise to the <br />level of an ethics violation...I'm not sure but I really think that that <br />section of the contract is incorrect but that's just my feeling. But <br />has been really helpful for me today to have the other presentations <br />from Mr. Brilhante and Ms. Ung. <br />Anyone else before voting? I think we need to think of how we're <br />going to you know...we can vote and then discuss what we want to <br />include on the order could we do a second motion...or should <br />we... <br />I think we should do it initially right. <br />Alright I don't know to me I of course agree that this really <br />is...you know we need to strictly look at the ethics code...the <br />question is whether there's been probable cause and an ethics <br />violation has been committed and while I agree that you know <br />especially that exception subsection 16 or whatever it is right. It's <br />not our job and though we have concerns...the bottom line is <br />there's not enough evidence to meet the threshold finding that <br />there's been an ethics probable cause with an ethics violation has <br />been committed...it's my feeling and I think and I think we should <br />put that in the order. I think we can...and it's okay to put in some <br />admonitory language or you know expressing of our idea about <br />how the these contracts work and what we feel you know that's <br />fine but again I agree with the conclusion bottom line as far as the <br />ethics code...we find that there's no violation and that the order be <br />drafted to reflect that. Any other discussion before we vote. <br />Yes. If I could. I hope you don't mind. The part that Ms. Novak <br />appeals on the 2-86 contracts...we read that carefully...I don't see <br />where that would apply this situation had the person who is Ms. <br />Cadaoas had she left the County and come back in some way to <br />represent a company that would be a concern. But in this case it <br />was a continuation of her current employment with the County and <br />so didn't feel that that was a violation in that regard. <br />Thank you for reminding us of that...right I mean...I think when <br />you have to you read the code together with a section 91... <br />2-91.2 (c) I think is what you're referring to. <br />20 <br />