7/23/2015 11:59:17 AM
6/12/2015 1:45:40 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
MAR .3 1981 <br />Commissioner Eggert referred to Page 40, which is a copy of <br />a legal document, and wished to know exactly what the stamp on it <br />that says "Approved as to form and legal sufficiency - By__ <br />County Attorney" means. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that it means that whatever <br />is in the document is in the proper form and can be put into <br />effect legally. It says nothing about policy or arithmetic or if <br />it is in the best interests of the county. <br />Commissioner Eggert stated that concerns her greatly. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that if the Board wants to know if <br />something is in the best interests of the county, then they look <br />to their own signatures on the document or that of the <br />Administrator. He further noted that the attorneys do give input <br />as to what they think is best at staff level and at the hearings <br />that go on concerning the making of that document, but as to the <br />document itself, this just says it is legal and is in the proper <br />form. <br />Commissioner Eggert continued to express concern, and <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that this is the same wording used <br />statewide by the county and city attorneys, but if the Board <br />wishes it to be for more than that, he can revise it. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed he did want it changed. He noted <br />that when former County Attorney Brandenburg reviewed a document, <br />it was for more than just whether it was spelled correctly and in <br />the proper legal form. He felt we need a team effort to cross- <br />check on these things. For instance, there was one document <br />with everyone's signature on it that he signed as Chairman, and <br />then the contractor came in and said that it shouldn't have been <br />signed because he hadn't yet provided proof of insurance and, in <br />fact, wanted the contract delayed a few more days until he could <br />provide it. The Chairman emphasized that he signed relying on all <br />those who had reviewed and signed off on the document. <br />Commissioner Eggert agreed that she would like to have <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.