Ordinance 2010-349 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... The Ethics Commission specifically opted for a broad interpretation of the two year prohibition, because to conclude otherwise "would create a loophole exempting these individuals..." (emphasis added). In light of this broad construction and applicability, the Ethics Commission reasoned that only individuals hired through temporary employment agencies, either full or part time, and who worked less than six (6) months for the County would be exempt from the two year post employment restriction, 04-34 March 11. 2004 In RQO 04-34, the Ethics Commission addressed the applicability of Section 2-11.1(q)(1) (the two year rule) and Section 2-11.1 (s) (lobbying) to a former County employee who was employed by a private engineering firm. The Ethics Commission ruled that the two year rule restriction outlined in these sections is "broad and covers any activity where you attend meetings and are publicly identified as part of CSA's lobbying team." The only permissible scope of activity would include "submitting routine administrative requests or applications, such as filing documents or requesting information." 04- 33 March 1. 2004 In RQO 04-33, the Ethics Commission considered the applicability of Section 2-11.1(q) (the two year rule) and Section 2-11.1(s) (lobbying) to former employees of the County's Building Department. In particular, the Ethics Commission addressed the following two issues: (1) whether former employees, who are self employed, could engage in the following activities: . Represent building code violators at ticket appeal hearings · Negotiate settlement agreements with department staff on unsafe structures cases and ticket cases . Interact with department staff in order to obtain building permits for clients (2) whether former employees, who work for developers, could engage in the following activities: · Submit permit applications and plans for processing . Meet with County staff to discuss the timeliness of plan review · Meet with County staff to review and to discuss requested modifications to plans as part of the permitting process The Ethics Commission ruled that representing building code violators at ticket appeal hearings and negotiating settlement agreements with department staff on behalf of third parties "would clearly constitute lobbying, as it is defined under Section 2-11.1(s)," The Ethics Commission reasoned that such activities seek "some action, decision or recommendation by County staff on behalf of third parties" and do not fall within the permissible scope of "routine administrative requests." The Ethics Commission also found that interacting with department staff in order to