|
Mr.
Troy informed the committee to discard any copies of the document that
they may have received before today’s meeting.
He stated that Mr. McKee and he met the day before to get the
document into good form. He
thanked Mr. Suben for meeting with them and providing legal ease.
He also thanked the Chairman, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Whitt for
being present at the meeting. He
stated that he would like to address the document that was placed
before the committee for consideration.
He stated that a draft of the document was given to the
committee in March 2008. He
informed the committee that the sub-committee gave over two months to
receive input. They held a
special meeting to discuss the topics of concern.
At that time there were three main areas of concern.
They were as follows:
-
Appendix A: Mr. Troy informed the committee
that it is a disclosure form. At
the March meeting it was deemed that the form was too intrusive.
Mr. Suben provided a form that was used in
Cayuga
County
, which was used to create our own disclosure form.
He believed the committee felt that the form was not as
intrusive as the form before. He
also stated that although the State form should be used, this form
would serve the same purpose.
-
Part C-1, Page 5: Mr. Troy informed the committee
that it states that appointed officials and department heads are not
able to run for legislature. When
it was discussed in dual caucus there were people that felt that it
should be included and others that felt that it shouldn’t. Mr. McKee
and I believed that we should move forward, so we brought it to this
committee, well aware of the possible conflict.
He stated that they added a second sentence to the statement to
explain the reason for it.
-
Part C-4, Page 5: Mr. Troy informed the committee
that it states that the position(s) of election commissioner and chair
of a political party may not concurrently held.
Mr. Troy stated that there was a large debate in the dual
caucus. He then stated
that it was brought to this committee for debate so it couldn’t be
said that it was being “swept under the rug.”
He
informed the committee that the committee could amend any of the areas
of concern. He also stated
that neither Mr. McKee nor he endorses Part C-4, but thought it
necessary to move forward with the document and debate it. He stated
that any changes that the committee wanted made had to be done today
because the next step was to take it to legislative session where it
would become a local law. Mr.
Troy informed the committee that there were a few Scriveners’ errors
that would be taken care of, but would not effect the information in
the document.
Mr.
Whitt explained to the committee that there is an error in the policy
in Part C-4 on page 5 of the document.
He did not intend for it to read that any Officer within a
political party can’t concurrently hold the position of Election
Commissioner. He stated
that it should read “…concurrently with the Chairman of any
Political Party.” He
suggested that you amend the proposal and decide whether to strike it
or not.
Mr.
Troy made a motion to amend page 5, C-4 to read “No person shall
hold the Office of Election Commissioner concurrent with the Chairman
of any Political Party.” Mr.
Cornell asked for a second. Ms.
Wilcox seconded. Mr.
Cornell asked for a vote. All
members voting in favor; None opposed; Motion carried.
Mr.
Piombo pointed out another correction that needed to be made.
In Appendix B in the list of Officers and Employees required to
file, Mr. Piombo pointed out that the Conflict Attorney was not
included.
Mr.
Piombo made a motion to amend Appendix B by adding the Conflict
attorney to the list. Mr.
Troy seconded. Mr. Cornell
called for a vote. All
members voting in favor; None opposed; Motion carried.
Ms.
Tytler inquired who would be required to fill out the disclosure
statement. She stated that
she was aware that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Schrader also had to fill out
the same type of form.
Mr.
Troy informed Ms. Tytler that this form could be used by anyone that
did not want to use the State form.
Mr.
Cornell stated that he had some concerns with Appendix A.
He inquired if the disclosure statement was just for the
individual and would not include the spouse’s financial information.
Mr.
Whitt stated that it was the intent of the document not to include the
spouse’s information.
Mr.
Cornell asked for some clarification in Appendix A, #5- Debts.
He inquired whether he needed to include a mortgage he might
have, as well as the amount of the mortgage, any vehicle payment, or
loan he may have with a bank that does business with the County.
Ms.
Price inquired if you could list the bank and none of the amounts.
Mr.
Cornell inquired about just stating yes to the question of whether or
not there was a debt over $5,000 and then listing the bank’s name.
Mr.
Suben replied that there must be a declaration of what the affiliation
is with the bank. The
answer of “yes” would not be sufficient enough.
Mr.
Cornell made a motion to amend #5-Debts in Appendix A to state “…(If
yes, Identify creditor by name only.)”
Ms. Price seconded. Mr.
Cornell asked for a vote from the committee if there was no more
discussion on the item. All
members voting in favor; None opposed; Motion carried.
Ms.
Wilcox asked for explanation about what should be included under e-
Investments in Appendix A. She
inquired if that would include all mutual funds, stocks and bonds.
Mr.
Suben stated that including that information would provide an honest
disclosure.
Mr.
Dafoe inquired how that information pertained to County business.
Mr.
Suben responded that in theory it cannot be predicted whom the County
will do business with in the future so, if the information is already
disclosed there should not be an issue.
He stated that this type of declaration would consensual.
Mr.
Piombo inquired if the form needed to be filled out since the County
in under 50,000 people in the county and has been for over 10 years.
Mr.
Suben stated that in his opinion it would not be mandatory unless
there was a law stating that it is required.
Ms.
Price inquired whether the disclosure forms would be public record.
Mr.
Cornell responded that it would be.
Mr.
Cornell stated that he would like to make an amendment to Page 5.
Under Part C, He would like to have #1 and #4 removed.
He stated it would be the only way that he would vote to
approve the Code of Ethics. He
informed the committee that he had e-mails from two town boards that
are strongly opposed to the Code of Ethics as it is currently written.
He stated that one board had passed a resolution to vote
against the Code of Ethics as it is written.
He informed the committee that the concerns were that it was
too intrusive and it inhibited someone running for office.
Mr.
Troy asked Mr. Cornell to make two separate amendments.
Mr.
Cornell made a motion to strike #1 in Part C.
Ms. Wilcox seconded. Mr.
Cornell opened the item up for discussion.
Ms.
Price stated they could vote to strike the statements or wait to bring
the issue to the legislative floor, where 19 legislators could debate
the issue and make a decision then.
Mr.
Cornell stated that could be possible, but if any amendments were made
on the floor, the process would have to start over again and the
document would have to set on the desk five days.
Mr.
Daniels stated that although he would like to see the code pass, he
would rather have 19 legislators debate the issue and then make a
decision.
Mr.
Cornell withdrew his amendment with the decision to send it to the
legislative floor.
|