My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/16/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
5/16/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:51:48 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:50:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/16/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
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 images
View plain text
MAY 16 1989 <br />BOOK76 FACE 861 <br />there now legal, and that included the family members and the <br />outside employees. Commissioner Scurlock understood that Mr. <br />Kirrie has indicated to the Board that the number of employees <br />that he has had outside of his family members is 8. Eight <br />employees plus his 4 family members make a total of 12. <br />Mr. Kirrie stated that he could document the 8 employees, <br />but could not document them in the timeframe that staff had asked <br />for. That is the only difficulty. <br />Mr. DeJoia understood then that if those employees could not <br />be documented during the timeframe, they could have been spread <br />out. over a longer period of time. <br />Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the Commission asked Mr. <br />Kirrie what was the most employees he had at one time. <br />Commissioner Scurlock explained that Mr. Kirrie has <br />indicated that the most non -family employees he has had at one <br />time was 8. <br />Mr. DeJoia wanted to see Mr. Kirrie document the fact that <br />he had 8 employees at one time, because he didn't feel that he <br />did. <br />Chairman Wheeler explained that Mr. Kirrie is saying that he <br />can document 8 employees at one time. <br />Mr. DeJoia still wanted to hear from the County Attorney on <br />whether they would have to live with the increased employees <br />based on that interpretation of the Motion. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that when this was discussed 2 \ <br />years ago, he had made certain arguments, but the Board <br />grandfathered in Mr. Kirrie's family members and outside <br />employees at that time. That was the clear direction from <br />Commissioner Eggert 2 years ago. <br />Commissioner Eggert interjected that she only seconded the <br />Motion and that it was the direction from the entire Board. She <br />didn't want that dumped on her because she wishes that wasn't <br />there at all. <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.