Were going to make recommendations concerning what the agency should do, weve got to have a lot more information about and understanding of what investigation the agency made and reached its determination. Boss comes in and says, i think i took appropriate action. Cant tell us what it is obviously for its a Personnel Matter. I dont know what he did. But he he seemed his judgment, then we listened to all this Public Comment about what a wonderful employee she is and a Wonderful Community leader, there is no way im inclined to tell the puc you ought to fire her. Well, he did have more than commissioner renne characterized in the stipulation. He had some egregious language in the violation itself. Influencing a governmental decision in which the official has a financial benefit. And i remember at the time when we were looking at that myself, i dont want to speak for commissioner hur who is next to me, we sort of had a visceral reaction to that, made some comments, some comments that were
Shouldnt be fired. I mean, its i think if were going to make recommendations concerning what the agency should do, weve got to have a lot more information about and understanding of what investigation the agency made and reached its determination. Boss comes in and says, i think i took appropriate action. Cant tell us what it is obviously for its a Personnel Matter. I dont know what he did. But he he seemed his judgment, then we listened to all this Public Comment about what a wonderful employee she is and a Wonderful Community leader, there is no way im inclined to tell the puc you ought to fire her. Well, he did have more than commissioner renne characterized in the stipulation. He had some egregious language in the violation itself. Influencing a governmental decision in which the official has a financial benefit. And i remember at the time when we were looking at that myself, i dont want to speak for commissioner hur who is next to me, we sort of had a visceral reaction to that, ma
Generic thing. Well, yeah, she he didnt she really didnt do it right. It was this is fairly substantial language of a violation how we heard all this other stuff. In my opinion [speaker not understood] in all the other thing we heard. In the face of it, i looked at that and i looked at what we see he is our mandate under our rules ~ to promote the highest standards of ethical behavior in government, and i see a department which is allowing someone to continue an employment who has pled guilty to these two rather egregiously sounding offenses. And to me it seemed based upon that knowledge and that knowledge only, it was appropriate to say that she shouldnt continue. Ive learned a lot more tonight, i have to tell you. Thats the problem. Thats the problem, is that it come off with, sure, youre quoting the statute. But even as you read the facts, what we knew about the facts, i certainly didnt feel it was a Corruption Case in the classic term of the word. That is some Public Employee who i
In front of me that would cause me to either think this woman should be fired or she shouldnt be fired. I mean, its i think if were going to make recommendations concerning what the agency should do, weve got to have a lot more information about and understanding of what investigation the agency made and reached its determination. Boss comes in and says, i think i took appropriate action. Cant tell us what it is obviously for its a Personnel Matter. I dont know what he did. But he he seemed his judgment, then we listened to all this Public Comment about what a wonderful employee she is and a Wonderful Community leader, there is no way im inclined to tell the puc you ought to fire her. Well, he did have more than commissioner renne characterized in the stipulation. He had some egregious language in the violation itself. Influencing a governmental decision in which the official has a financial benefit. And i remember at the time when we were looking at that myself, i dont want to speak f
Agreement itself contains language that says a stipulation will be the final disposition of the matter. There is certainly language that can be put into Settlement Agreements when we bring them before the commission and perhaps the commission doesnt think they go far enough. But to actually reopen them obviously recreate aid hornets net in a specific case here. But we also think if the commission were to do this in any case that it would be very difficult to negotiate future Settlement Agreements because the respondents would very clearly say, why should i enter a settlement if i know you can just bring it up again some day . And, so, thats the crux of our concerns. And setting aside the individual case thats been put aside, we have we think this is a troubling avenue for the commission to consider. I would just respond briefly that, again, not going certainly going not going into the individual situation we had tonight. I did not see this as reopening any matter. I saw this as a matte