12-02-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission Minutes--December 2, 1996 1550 He said the taxpayers have been very well served by this Commission because of the prompt action taken. Additional written concerns or statements have been submitted by county employees associated with the investigation since the time of the reports submitted by Ms. Jerich and Mr. Kildahl. Mr. Strommen discussed the Commission's limitations and discretionary authority under the North Dakota Century Code. The Commission has no authority to force Mr. Goff to resign and no authority to remove him from office or fire him. Ultimately, elected county officials are answerable to their electorate. Mr. Strommen said, however, the Commission has the duty to supervise the conduct of the respective county offices and superintend the fiscal affairs of the county. Mr. Strommen recommended that the County Commission act on two issues: the conduct of John Goff and recommended changes to improve the State's Attorney's Office work environment. Statement and action regarding conduct of John Goff Commissioners proceeded to discuss the options outlined by Mr. Strommen. Mrs. Schneider asked for clarification of the terms admonition, censure and sanction. Mr. Strommen then defined the terms for the Board. Mr. Wieland said this has been a very serious and very difficult situation. He said the County has tried, through its personnel policies, to provide a safe working environment in all county offices. He believes there is some evidence in Ms. Jerich's report that suggests John Goff has not done some things correctly and there is a need for admonition or censure of some sort. In moving forward, he sees a need to work cooperatively in order to best serve the citizens of Cass County. Mr. Eckert said he bases his decisions on facts, not on rumors. Mr. Ness said he is concerned about providing a safe working environment for all county employees. Mr. Ness asked Mr. Goff why Elizabeth Schiltz was present at a meeting when he called in one of his secretaries to inquire about the contents of his personal mail being communicated outside the office. Mr. Goff responded that Ms. Schlitz was already in his office on business and he wanted to have a witness, someone from outside the office, present when he discussed this issue. Mr. Ness then asked if Mr. Goff questioned other secretaries in the office, and he said he did not want to make a big deal of it but just wanted some information. Mr. Ness said the Commission needs to be sure employees who work in that office on a day-to-day basis do not suffer any retaliation. MOTION, vote withdrawn Mm. Schneider moved and Mr. Wieland seconded that the Commission look at Option A.2, including 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3; to look at Option A.3, second sentence of 3.3 but deleting the first sentence; and to look at option A.3, including 3.4 in its entirety. Discussion: Mr. Eckert said he could support option 3.4 creating a better working environment in the State's Attorney's Office but he could not support the rest of the motion. Mrs. Toussaint suggested including the first sentence in 3.2 rather than omitting it.