My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/28/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
7/28/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:58 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 11:10:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/28/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
there to chair the committee and guide the committee. <br />County Attorney Vitunac responded that normally all committee members have a vote <br />and must vote unless they have a financial conflict. <br />Mr. Legwen questioned whether a committee is generally made up of an odd number <br />of members in order to avoid tie votes. <br />County Attorney Vitunac agreed that was generally the case, but pointed out that <br />often, due to absences of committee members, there can be a tie vote. <br />Mr. Legwen's next concern was the Sunshine Law. He understood every Board <br />member and committee member was required to abide by the Sunshine Law. He asked how <br />Vice Chairman Macht was able to discuss a certain matter on the telephone with School <br />Board Superintendent Roger Dearing without violating the Sunshine Law. <br />Vice Chairman Macht advised that as the question was framed, the conversation was <br />to have been on a procedural matter, not a matter that would have come to a vote, and, in <br />fact, the conversation never took place because events overtook it. He continued that <br />Commissioners rely on individual discretion to know when to speak about matters that are <br />strictly procedural or whether they are substantive and will come to a later vote. <br />Mr. Legwen outlined a scenario and asked about the possibility of Sunshine Law <br />violation. County Attorney Vitunac responded that he thought all the Commissioners know <br />very well the Sunshine Law and that they understand it, that no two members of the same <br />board can meet in private to discuss matters which may come before that board. It does not <br />mean that they cannot discuss other matters. <br />Mr. Legwen pursued in this line of questioning with respect to the definition of a <br />"latchkey child". He believed that placing certain members of the community on the <br />CSNetwork was a great injustice. He stated that if a secretary or someone were to overhear <br />a discussion during which they heard the words "Children's Services Network", it was their <br />duty to report a violation of the Sunshine Law. He did not think that any employee of the <br />County would like to be placed in that position. <br />Mr. Legwen also objected to the process for selection of the subcommittee members <br />of the CSNetwork and that the office of Management and Budget had been circumvented in <br />the CSNetwork process. <br />Commissioner Adams advised that the information would be sent to the Budget Office <br />when it was ready. <br />July 28, 1998 <br />61 <br />Boos 106 PAu434 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.