Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Tippin commented that he understood the provision listed as a) but <br />worried about the legality of b) and felt that it was too restrictive. He asked County <br />Attorney Vitunac to comment. - -- -- <br />County Attorney Vitunac recalled telling the Board the last time they spoke on this <br />topic that he thought that type of restriction would be illegal. The Board, however, wanted <br />to see a draft of the hardest version possible and said they would then consider what to do <br />with it. Paragraph b) would make present County employees, especially engineers, <br />unemployable in their field not only in this county but throughout the state of Florida if they <br />worked for a statewide or national firm. <br />Commissioner Adams disagreed because b) says the former employee cannot come <br />before the Board of County Commissioners and make a presentation if that employee had <br />significant involvement in that particular matter. She gave as an example if Camp Dresser <br />McKee hired a former Utilities employee, it would not prohibit CDM from coming before <br />the Board with a public works project. It would only prohibit the former employee from <br />doing a presentation on a "utility -related" matter . <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if an employee had worked with Sewer and Water if it <br />would prohibit the company from coming with a Solid Waste matter, and Commissioner <br />Adams responded that the Landfill was separate from Sewer and Water. <br />Commissioner Eggert thought that distinction was not always true. <br />Commissioner Adams recounted that the County had already had this happen where <br />a company has stolen one of our key employees in order to have an advantage in dealing with <br />the County. She called it "corporate raiding". She reiterated that the only thing limited by <br />paragraph b) is if the company is seeking to do work for the County on which the former <br />employee had significant involvement. <br />Commissioner Ginn was concerned about employees whose jobs were privatized, and <br />Commissioner Eggert pointed out that those employees would not be coming before the <br />Commission. <br />Administrator Chandler added that a waiver provision had been included for <br />employees who were affected by privatization. <br />Vice Chairman Macht suggested that if they passed this ordinance as it is, they could <br />send it off to the Attorney General for an opinion. <br />January 20, 1998 <br />51 <br />boa 104 FnE 177 <br />