Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Administrator Baird, in defense of staff’s action to remove the item from the <br />Agenda, reasoned that they needed to have adequate documentation, hence the <br />consultation with the County Attorney’s Office for direction and handling of the matter. <br />He apologized for the unintended outcome but thought they were following correct <br />procedure. <br /> <br />Commissioners Davis, Bowden and Lowther agreed with the Chairman that there <br />should be guidelines governing such matters. Commissioner Bowden wanted the record to <br />reflect that they did receive a letter from “the lady” and it was a very harsh letter. She also <br />appreciated the steps taken by the County Attorney in his legal determination. <br /> <br />Assistant County Attorney William DeBraal explained his actions when he was <br />presented with the request. He defended and supported his Office in its handling of the <br />matter. <br /> <br />Assistant County Administrator Michael Zito did not believed there was a real <br />conflict and defended the actions of staff as “pure”. He however, felt the Chairman could <br />put any item on the Agenda he wished. He also felt the Chairman should set ground rules. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins agreed that the Board could set policy but was concerned that if <br />“the lady” had made a presentation it could have backfired on her if someone was opposed <br />to her project at a later time. <br /> <br />There was consensus that “Commissioners’ items” placed on the Agenda should <br />remain there for discussion at the Board meeting, and if there were any objections then they <br />would decide if the item needed to be pulled or addressed at a later date. <br /> <br />October 10, 2006 <br />23 <br /> <br />