Quick Comments On McAvoy Contract

Regarding the McAvoy contract …

In the article in today’s Argus, Dawn Phillips Hertz is reported to have said that the question of the contract is open to interpretation of the state statute. “The question is whether (McAvoy) signing the contract is essential. The negotiations were already done. Was her signature just a formality?” Hertz is an attorney with the Michigan Press Association.

I don’t disagree with Hertz, but I would add that the approval of the contract is also open to interpretation …

On page 1 of the July 27 minutes we have 3 separate instances of the commissioners entering into agreements:

It was moved by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Roszman to consider approving the Michigan Works! Career Alliance Inc. Capacity Building and Professional Development Plan for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 in the amount of $24,000 and authorize the Board Chair to sign the same.

It was moved by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Capitan to consider approving the Michigan Works! Career Alliance Inc. Service Center Operations Plan for the period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 in the amount of $194,654 and authorize the Board Chair to sign the same.

It was moved by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Roszman to consider approving the First Amendment to the agreement between the State of Michigan Department of Corrections and Shiawassee County entitled “Comprehensive Corrections Plans Rider C” with an increase in funding for FY 2006 of $1,817 for a total amount of $19,155 and authorize the Board Chair to sign the same.

Following these items, Margaret’s contract is considered:

It was moved by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Capitan to approve the County Coordinator’s contract as presented. Motion carried with the following roll call vote of 5Yeas and 2 Nays. Yeas: Commissioners Capitan, Cole, Van Pelt, Walden and Fuja. Nays: Commissioners Pavlica and Roszman

All of the above motions were carried.

1. I see no authorization to sign anything, in regards to Margaret’s contract. This is in contrast to the first three items, where there was specific authorization to sign “the same”.

2. The board approved the contract as presented. The signed copy of Margaret’s contract has a typed date of August. The contract presented at the July 27 meeting had a typed date of July. That’s one change. How many other changes had been made after the contract that was presented had been approved?

More later.