11/17/1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WAS POSSIBLY WRONG IN HIS DECISION EARLIER IN THE MEETING IN REGARD TO COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FILING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE STATED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO BE SUPER - CAUTIOUS AND NOW DOES NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS NECESSARY, DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON HOW FAR THIS SHOULD GO, CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED IF THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF WOULD BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM THE DECISION BEING MADE, HE MUST DECLARE A CONFLIUT OF INTEREST. HE THEN WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE BOARD'S STANDARD OF ETHICS AS OPPOSED TO STATE LAW. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT SOME GUIDELINES MUST BE SET UP ON JUST HOW FAR YOU WANT TO GO IN THIS SITUATION. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD'S POLICY IS MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS. HE CONTINUED THAT IF A PERSON OBJECTS WHOM YOU HAVE A CLOSE CONNECTION TO, YOU MAY STILL VOTE, WHICH IS A REVERSAL OF WHAT I INDICATED BEFORE. IF THAT SAME PERSON HAPPENS TO BE THE APPLICANT, THAT IS YOUR DECISION, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DECLARE A CONFLICT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE FOR THE ATTORNEY. TO WRITE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO DETERMINE IN A CASE WHERE THE BOARD'S POLICY IS MORE RESTRICTIVE IN REGARD TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAN THE STATE'S, WHICH APPLIES. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER PRESENTED A LIST OF STREETS AND AREAS TO BE WORKED ON UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, HE DISCUSSED THESE WITH THE BOARD, POINTING THEM OUT ON MAPS, AND NOTED THAT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN ORDER OF PRIORITY. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT, ALTHOUGH HE IS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF RECREATION, THE ONLY THING HE WOULD QUESTION ON THE LIST ARE THE TWO BALLFIELDS AS THEY INVOLVE CONTINUING MAINTENANCE, DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11 ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, WHICH LIST IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. 0 NOV 171976 Rat- 27 283