[00:00:01]
WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED WITH OUR WORK SESSION FOR SESSION NUMBER TEN GOING THROUGH OUR AGENDA.
[ ROLL CALL]
TODAY'S INVOCATION WILL BE LED BY MINORITY LEADER MILLS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY LEGISLATOR BARGNESI.ITEMS FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
THERE ARE NONE. THERE ARE NO TABLED ITEMS. MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING WILL BE UP FOR APPROVAL.
[ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Meeting No. 9]
THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THIS TIME.[ MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTIONS:]
THE DISTRICT FIVE CITIZEN OF THE MONTH, LED BY LEGISLATOR VINAL AND FOSTER CARE AWARENESS MONTH LED BY THAT LEGISLATOR JOHNSON.ON PAGE THREE LOCAL LAWS, LOCAL LAW.
[ LOCAL LAWS:]
INTRO 2-1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING LOCAL LAW INTRO 4-1 AS INDICATED.COMMITTEE REPORTS REPORT NUMBER NINE FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
[ COMMITTEE REPORTS:]
ALL SET, MADAM CHAIR.THANK YOU. AND REPORT NUMBER NINE FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
ALL SET, MADAM CHAIR. AND REPORT NUMBER SIX FROM THE ENERGY ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, MAJORITY LEADER.
ALL SET MADAM CHAIR. AND REPORT NUMBER SIX FROM THE FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU. OKAY. THERE ARE NO.
YES. FOR ENERGY ENVIRONMENT WE SEPARATE SEVEN-16 AND 9-4 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE [INAUDIBLE].
I'M SORRY TITLES OF THE ITEMS LEGISLATIVE.
NUMBERS WRITTEN DOWN LET ME FIND THEM.
DO YOU HAVE [INAUDIBLE]? THE TWO ITEMS WERE BEING REQUESTED TO SEPARATE.
I'LL HAVE THE TITLE NEXT TIME. I JUST HAVE THE NUMBERS.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE ITEMS THAT WERE SEPARATED.
I'M SORRY. IT'S ITEMS NUMBER THREE AND SIX.
COMMUNITY FORESTRY PARTNERSHIP PROJECT.
OH, THE FORESTRY PARTNERSHIP PROJECT.
THANK YOU. CONTINUING ON WITH OUR AGENDA.
THERE ARE NONE. COMMUNICATIONS DISCHARGE FROM COMMITTEE.
[ COMMUNICATIONS DISCHARGED FROM COMMITTEE:]
INTRO 9-6 FROM LEGISLATOR JOHNSON CALLING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW TO ENGAGE IN A CONTRACT FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT OF THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.THIS ITEM WILL BE DISCHARGED AND UP FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND COMMUNICATION 9-21 FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE WILL BE DISCHARGED IN ITEM ON A JAIL MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT WILL BE UP FOR CONSIDERATION. THERE ARE NO SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.
MADAM CHAIR, THE SHERIFF WE WANTED TO WE DISCUSSED ABOUT TABLING THE DISCUSSION.
THE SHERIFF WAS OKAY WITH THAT.
WE DID REACH OUT TO HIM AND HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
THAT'S THE ONE REARRANGING SOME POSITIONS.
CORRECT. WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.
HE PROVIDED SOME ANSWERS LAST WEEK OR HIS DEPARTMENT DID.
DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT NOW? I MEAN, WE'RE IN THE WORK SESSION RIGHT NOW.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO REACH OUT TO THE SHERIFF.
HE'S HE'S ENCOURAGED FRANK SPOKE TO HIM.
I GUESS [INAUDIBLE] TEXT MESSAGE WITH HIM YEAH. YOU'RE WELCOME TO REACH OUT TO HIM BETWEEN YEAH, JUST DOUBLE CHECKING.
BUT THE SHERIFF'S REQUESTED TO HAVE IT TABLED UNTIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
OKAY. WE WILL DEFINITELY WORK IT OUT BEFORE SESSION.
LEGISLATOR JOHNSON IF THE SHERIFF IS FINE WITH IT.
IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DISCHARGE.
OKAY. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.
[ COMMUNICATIONS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS:]
COMMUNICATION 10E-14 THROUGH AND INCLUDING COMMUNICATION 10E-28 AS INDICATED.[00:05:01]
AND COMMUNICATION 20 I'M SORRY AND COMMUNICATION 10E-29 AND COMMUNICATION 10E-30 AS INDICATED.[ COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS:]
[ COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PEOPLE AND OTHER AGENCIES:]
COMMUNICATION 10M-1 INCLUDING COMMUNICATION 10M-3 AS INDICATED.ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES. LEGISLATOR LORIGO, THANK YOU SO FOR INTRO 9-6 I KNOW IN COMMITTEE LAST WEEK WE DISCUSSED SOME AMENDMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'D BE PROPOSING TO THAT RESOLUTION? RESOLUTION 9-6 LAST WEEK IN COMMITTEE WE DISCUSSED SOME POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS FOR THE RESOLUTION? SO I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION MIC]. OKAY.
CAN WE GET ANOTHER OPINION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE ITEM? I JUST WANT IS THERE AN OPINION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT AT ALL? SO IS THERE ANY HARM IN ADDING THAT? PUT AN AD IN THERE, A RESOLVE CLAUSE.
HAVE WE HAVE YOU WE ALSO HAD SOME AMENDMENTS IN THERE ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE WORK.
AND IF THIS IS AND THIS IS REALLY ABOUT GETTING TO THE ANSWERS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE.
OTHERWISE I MEAN, THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. YEAH.
NO, I WAS GOING TO SAY IS YOU KNOW, YEAH.
HAVING IT IN WRITING THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS GOING TO SUPERSEDE AND ELIMINATE THE PRIOR RESOLUTION MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I LET ME FINISH MY SENTENCE, PLEASE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HERE STATING THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
WE ALL AGREED ON THAT LAST WEEK.
AND I THINK HAVING THAT DOLLAR FIGURE AS A CAP AS OPPOSED TO BELOW WHERE IT'S JUST A RANGE.
SO HAVING THAT NUMBER OF, OF EXPECTATION IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSE, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BELOW WHERE IT'S JUST KIND OF FLOATING ON THE PAGE, WOULD MAKE SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THAT IS THE PRIOR RESOLUTION WHICH WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY REQUESTED THAT THE CLERK ISSUE AN RFP FOR THE PROCESS.
WHAT WE [INAUDIBLE] WHAT I'M SAYING, AT LEAST HERE, IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE THE, THE, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ISSUE AN RFP VERSUS JUST A STRAIGHT YOU KNOW.
[00:10:08]
AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A LITTLE MORE WORK ON ON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S SHOULDERS TO ISSUE AN RFP, BUT IT PROVIDES US, AS THE FISCAL BODY OF ERIE COUNTY, TO KNOW THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR HIS BUCK.SO IT WOULD THEN COME BACK TO US.
AND IF HE ONLY HAS ONE RESPONSE, WE'VE SEEN THAT.
IT'S JUST MAKING THIS AN RFP PROCESS.
IT SHOULDN'T BE SLOWING THINGS DOWN MORE THAN ABOUT 30 DAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WE ARE GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEBODY DOING THIS AUDIT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S AGAINST THE AUDIT.
I MEAN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING, WE'RE MOVING THE RFP FROM THIS.
INCLUDING THE RFP WILL REQUIRE A DEFINED SCOPE OF WORK.
WE STILL HAVE AUDITS COMING FROM THE STATE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE GOING TO IDENTIFY.
WITHOUT A SCOPE OF WORK, WE COULD BE DUPLICATING WORK AND STILL NOT IDENTIFYING THE ISSUE.
SO THANK YOU LEGISLATOR, GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.
I THINK OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK MARY TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE SHE MIGHT RECOMMEND STARTING, WHICH MAY BE THE POINT WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ARRAIGNED BEGAN HIS TENURE AS THE FINANCE DEPUTY.
I DO KNOW THAT CERTAINLY MARY HAS PUT TOGETHER WHAT SHE THINKS COULD BE A PROSPECTIVE SCOPE, WHICH, IF WE'RE INCLUDED AS THE OR AS THE [INAUDIBLE] RESOLUTION SUGGESTS, WE MIGHT RECOMMEND.
AND WE HAD ONE RESPONSE AND THE COST WAS OVER DOUBLE WHAT WE PAID THREE YEARS AGO.
THANK YOU. SO IF WE'RE DEFINING A SCOPE OF WORK, I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN PUTTING OUT AN RFP.
LIMITED RESPONSE ISN'T A REASON NOT TO GO ABOUT THIS THE RIGHT WAY.
LIKE I SAID, I THINK IF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE, WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT WE NEED AN RFP TO DO THAT, TO ENSURE THAT THIS BODY STILL HAS OVERSIGHT AND THAT WE'RE TAKING THE DEEP DIVE.
SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO.
I MEAN, I HAVE THE AMENDMENTS, I'D LIKE TO PASS THEM OUT.
THEY'RE THE AMENDMENTS THAT I PLAN TO MAKE TO THE RESOLUTION FOR YOUR REVIEW.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THEM, WE CAN.
THEY'RE THE SAME ONES THAT WE GAVE YOU LAST WEEK.
THIS IS TRULY ABOUT GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ON BOARD.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT AND GETTING THE ANSWERS.
I THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SAME INTENT HERE.
ONE ONE THING I THINK MAYBE MIGHT SOLVE BOTH PROBLEMS IS THAT WHAT IF WE CHANGED THE NAME TO PUT IT TO A FORENSIC AUDIT? BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT KINDS OF AUDITS.
AND THOSE ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE AUDITS.
SO IF IT'S A FORENSIC AUDIT THEN WHY, THAT'S A SPECIFIC KIND OF AUDIT.
SO IF IT ALREADY HAS THAT THAT IS KIND OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.
SO I THINK THE TERM FORENSIC AUDIT IS SORT OF A SCOPE ISH WORD.
I MEAN IT'S A LIMITING TO LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, NOT TO REPLACE AN ANNUAL AUDIT OR NOT TO REPLACE AN AUDIT BECAUSE STOCKHOLDER, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF SEEING IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE ISSUES, CORRECT.
SO WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY YEARS ARE WE LOOKING BACK.
AND IF WE HAVE THE COMPTROLLER THAT'S DEFINING A SCOPE OF WORK, THERE'S REALLY NO HARM IN PUTTING THIS OUT TO AN RFP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE WORK DONE THAT WE ACTUALLY WANT. IN MY MY OPINION ON IT IS THAT IS THAT IT SHOULD BECOME BEFORE THIS LEGISLATURE SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE EVEN IF IT'S ONE RESPONDENT, WE CAN SAY THIS IS THE WORK THEY'RE GOING TO DO AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SIGNING OFF ON, AND IT GIVES US THE OVERSIGHT AND CHECK AND BALANCE THAT THIS BODY IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
[00:15:03]
SO I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN AN RFP.YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN WANTING RFPS FOR ALL PROFESSIONAL THINGS.
AND LIKE I SAID, I HAVE AMENDMENTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE MOST OF THEM WE'VE LARGELY AGREED TO SO FAR.
I THINK THAT WE ARE DOING OUR WORK.
I THINK THAT THE RESOLUTION AS IS ALLOWS THE WORK TO GO FORWARD.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MONEY MISSING IN THAT DEPARTMENT.
WE RECOGNIZE ALL THOSE SHORTCOMINGS IN THERE, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT THAT COVERS IT ALL RIGHT THERE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH MORE TO SAY.
I SAY WE'VE WE'VE BEEN AT THIS AD NAUSEAM.
SO I'M GOING TO STAY RESERVED.
BUT WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS AD NAUSEUM FOR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
WE ALL AGREE THAT THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
COMPLETELY AGREE AN RFP WAS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FIRST RESOLUTION, WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO DO AN RFP TODAY? WE DON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THEY DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
THEY THEY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT.
THEY CAN THEY CAN JUST SO JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO IS WHY WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE IS THAT THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO GIVE UP OUR OVERSIGHT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, WE'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY OVERSIGHT. YES WE ARE.
WE'RE GIVING UP OUR SO WHAT IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GOING TO DO TO OFFSET, YOU KNOW, TO, TO MAKE TO, TO MAKE THE SCOPE OF WORK NOT IN THE SCOPE OF WORK.
WE COULD GET AN AUDIT BEFORE US THAT ISN'T WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE WANT AS A BODY.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE ACTING LIKE WE'RE THE BAD GUYS OVER THERE? NO, I'M NOT. THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING NEFARIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WE THAT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL.
I, I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE DOING ANYTHING NEFARIOUS.
WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM THE FENCE OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING.
I THINK THAT YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE OFFICE, THEY COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BUT THEY'RE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CORRECT? THEY'RE LAWYERS.
RIGHT? THEY DON'T DO AUDITS. OKAY.
I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT US WORKING TOGETHER, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S PROBLEMS IN THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BEST WORK TO RESOLVE [INAUDIBLE] AND HELP US FIND A SOLUTION TO THOSE PROBLEMS AND WE'RE COUNTY LEGISLATORS OF A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THAT SHOULD BE A CHECK AND BALANCE.
YEAH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO MICROMANAGE THE POLICIES ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS NO, BUT WE SHOULD JUST LIKE, WE'RE WHAT SO I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN RFP.
LIKE I SAID, I HAVE THIS FROM LAST WEEK.
I'M HAPPY TO PASS IT OUT, BUT THEY'RE THE AMENDMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
I THINK WE AGREE ON THEM ALL WE'RE WE'RE GIVING THEM A SCOPE OF WORK FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.
SO WHY DON'T WE WANT TO SEE THE RFP COME BEFORE US? I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT.
SO IF WE GET AN RFP AND IT'S NOT THE FIRST RESOLUTION WE PASSED ON THIS.
SO NOBODY'S INTENT HAS CHANGED.
YES. AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.