Tuesday, January 12, 2010
 
sponsored by

Background checks and public comment sticking points in revisions to county's processes (Part 1)

Send a link to a friend

(Originally posted Tuesday afternoon)

[January 12, 2010] 

  • Protecting the county, its assets and revenue managed by appointees

  • Giving residents an opportunity to express their opinion and weigh in on public policy or actions the board might take

  • Providing the proper forum that is expedient for the board to conduct its business matters

Photographers

These are the final matters that the Policies and Procedures Committee is working on while redrafting the 1998 Policies and Procedures Resolution. The seven-page document that steers Logan County Board actions gives way to state law and Robert's Rules of Order. It was identified last year by the new two-year, reorganized board as needing a brush-up to current times.

Committee members have dutifully reviewed the document line by line to remove, add or modify policies that would assist the current and future boards. Choosing just the right wording that allows some latitude when needed, yet provides enough structure, has been laborious and is nearing an end but for a couple of sticking points.

One addition in particular has caused difficulty for a local agency. It is planned to add that background checks would be conducted on all appointments made through the county board. The resolution states that the county board chairman appoints with the consent of the county board.

At the request of the current county board chairman, Terry Carlton, and with approval of Logan County State's Attorney Michael McIntosh, appointment checks are already being done. The Logan County Health Department administrator, Mark Hilliard, agreed to the process in November, and new Health Board appointees were passed in a couple of days.

The checks have been processed at no additional cost to the county by using the LEADS system. While all Logan County law enforcement-related agencies and all squad cars have LEADS, it has been 911 Dispatch and EMA that have been providing the service for the board.

Exterminator

Carlton said that the board gets names of a lot of people. Recognizing the responsibility of knowing the people he and the board are appointing on behalf of the public, he said, "It's all on you.

"Do you just take these people's names and say, 'We're good'? Most times you don't know them well enough.

"I'm not questioning their caliber or anything like that. I applaud them for their years of public service."

But recognizing changing times and that information is readily available, "as a county we might be remiss" to not take advantage of that, Carlton said.

Committeewoman Jan Schumacher commented that it was previously recognized in committee that the chairman has the authority to do background checks anyway. But, by putting them in the policy, then it would be consistent for current and future boards.

In attendance for the committee were chair Rick Aylesworth; Dave Hepler, who also serves as board parliamentarian; Schumacher; Pat O'Neill; Terry Werth; and Carlton.

The board chairman serves on all committees.

Guests present representing the local tourism bureau included director Geoff Ladd, attorney Douglas Muck, Misty Bell and Stacie Wachtel.

In regard to Muck's presence, Carlton said, "I would wait to have our attorney here before I would want to hear from anyone else's attorney here to investigate this."

Muck was allowed to speak his opinion and concerns. He distinguished that there is a difference between someone applying for a job giving consent to be investigated and privacy concerns of people who wish to serve. He urged restraint in use of authority.

Ladd called on the committee to consider the structure of the tourism board, its relationship to the county and to the state, which he said create some unique circumstances. He recognized the current societal and legal groundbreaking it presents, saying, "It would need more definition to avoid discrimination." He emphasized that the agency is state-certified, and it is important that his agency be able to keep apolitical in its operations. That dynamic is difficult to maintain. If appointments were to be overridden, it could present problems.

Ladd brought forward ex post facto on behalf of current board tourism board members saying, "We don't have term limits for our board members."

[to top of second column]

He added that reappointments and notices to the board are really done as a courtesy. "It is really to let you know when someone is up for reappointment and we want your blessing on that," he said.

"We want to work with you on this," Ladd said. One of the problems is the process. There has been information leaked out on other background checks, he said.

His full list of concerns is presented below.

In closing, the committee agreed to try to get a recommendation from the attorney general and also to see what other counties are doing.

[By JAN YOUNGQUIST]

Water

Ladd presented several issues that were of concern to him:

(Copy of file received)

1. Finalized procedure needs to have an opinion by Attorney General's office to make sure all is legal on a state and county level.

a) Any flaw in the procedure opens up the possibility of litigation against the Tourism Bureau

2. Finalized procedure must be adopted by the County Board before implementation

a) Tourism Bureau would need to cite a County Board resolution if it were to adopt any new rules.

b) Tourism Bureau cannot adopt a policy that is only that of the County Chairman – what happens if he/she leaves?

3. Ex Post Facto rules must be honored, whether board members are up for re-appointment or not.

a) these were not the terms that board members originally agreed to serve under, and so these members are not subject to background checks

4. According to County rules, procedure would have to be conducted by an authorized company that is bonded and insured.

a) It appears to be against county rules to use the Sheriff or EMA to conduct these procedures

b) Concerns that County insurance wouldn't cover damage to individuals if information got out

5. We would need a clear written indication of who is authorized to review the results, and we would need defined criteria for adoption or rejection of appointment

a) potential litigation against Tourism Bureau if  information about background checks got out.

b) potential concerns about discrimination based on federal standards – race, gender, etc.

c) potential concerns about using the information to force out people and put in people with no regard to their value as tourism professionals (a.k.a. political appointments).

Geoff Ladd
Executive Director
Abraham Lincoln Tourism Bureau of Logan County

< Top Stories index

Back to top


 

News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching and Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries

Community | Perspectives | Law and Courts | Leisure Time | Spiritual Life | Health and Fitness | Teen Scene
Calendar | Letters to the Editor