Walton County Planning Department - help wanted
- Thread starter SoWalSally
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I think you should change your code name to IMSMART.bsmart said:
Smiling JOe said:
hahaha.
Maybe on another board in which I want to appear as a conceited person. Smart is my last name so that is why I chose bsmart as my username. ~Brian.
I would like an "expert" to answer a question for me...I was told that public servants a/k/a Walton County employee... could not work for both the public entity and in the private sector. How is this occurrinng without protest? Seems to be a clear conflict that could result in poor decision-making regarding public issues.
CiaoBella said:
Where is the problem if they cannot work for both the private and public?
Conflict of interest is a financial term, in the legal sense. A public sector planner would probably not have a financial interest in most work they undertake in their public capacity. However, there is also the perception angle. Most agencies have a clause in their employee contract that explicitly prevents a planner from engaging in consulting work within the same jurisdiction for which they serve as public staff. In fact, some contracts do not allow a senior person (such as a planning director) to go to work for a private sector entity working with that agency for a year after they leave the employ of the public sector agency. Most planning consultants do not do private sector work and simultaneously work as a contract planner for local government within the same jurisdiction. It can be very confusing for the public, as well as for planning commissions and elected officials. And there is always the potential for a planner's analysis and recommendations on one project to have some profound effect on another, or to set a precedent that could translate into other projects before the locale. Really not a good idea and highly unusual for such a situation to exist. But basically, a public employee could get away with this until someone points out the potential for conflict. It is called "moonlighting" and is usually specifically prohibited.
Thank you very much Donna. You are correct, the rules are so confusing. I suppose that it would only be a problem if someone brought it to the attention of the primary employer.
To Smiling Joe-I have a doctorate in public administration and myself and colleages have always been taught & told that it is a serious "offense" (if you will) to work on the sly when you are supposed to be serving the public interest and not your own!
To Smiling Joe-I have a doctorate in public administration and myself and colleages have always been taught & told that it is a serious "offense" (if you will) to work on the sly when you are supposed to be serving the public interest and not your own!
CiaoBella said:
Perhaps I am misreading the rules or your post. The rules seem like good rules, not allowing conflict of interest. Reading your post, you seem to have a problem with the rules. You refer to the rules then in the following sentence relate the rules to why there is no protest. From reading your additional posts, I can only guess that your problem is not with the rules, but with Tom Blackshear going to work for the private sector after he terminated his employment with the public office.
I guess if you knew Tom Blackshear, you would not question any potential for wrong doing on his behalf. That is probably why no one is questioning it. Most of us were very sad to see Tom leave. He has great knowledge of Walton County, and he is missed greatly.
Sorry that I was not clear...hectic day...I am sure everyone can relate. 
No, I do not have a problem with Mr. Blackshear. Working for the private sector after severing ties with your public employer is not as questionable in my opinion. Especially if the individual is of very high character. I only have a problem with planners who are currently working for a public entity and profit within the private sector.
No, I do not have a problem with Mr. Blackshear. Working for the private sector after severing ties with your public employer is not as questionable in my opinion. Especially if the individual is of very high character. I only have a problem with planners who are currently working for a public entity and profit within the private sector.
My goodness! I had to read back on this thread to realize that your question related to Tom Blackshear. We talked with Tom on several occasions when in the process of buying our house and I found him to be one of the most objective and informative public planners that I had ever come into contact with. He was very committed to making sure that we, the public he serves, had all the information with which to make an informed decision. In fact, I was rather surprised (yet pleased) that he decided to leave public service for the private sector. The County and its residents are well served by having Tom Blackshear advise developers in the area.
The caveat in planning directors' work contracts that does not allow them to work in the private sector after public service is largely a thing of the past. It was intended to prevent directors from making biased decisions or recommendations when they might be interviewing for a job with a developer doing work in that jurisdiction. Usually, the caveat stipulated one year from the date of leaving the public agency, if the new employer/developer had had ongoing work in the director's jurisdiction at the time he or she left. One might question whether this was even legal for a public agency to require, for that matter. I haven't seen this caveat in a very long time.
Tom Blackshear will be a credit to any employer and to the projects that he is advisor on. The County is fortunate to have his wife, Pat Blackshear as director now. Our experience with both was very positive. :clap_1:
The caveat in planning directors' work contracts that does not allow them to work in the private sector after public service is largely a thing of the past. It was intended to prevent directors from making biased decisions or recommendations when they might be interviewing for a job with a developer doing work in that jurisdiction. Usually, the caveat stipulated one year from the date of leaving the public agency, if the new employer/developer had had ongoing work in the director's jurisdiction at the time he or she left. One might question whether this was even legal for a public agency to require, for that matter. I haven't seen this caveat in a very long time.
Tom Blackshear will be a credit to any employer and to the projects that he is advisor on. The County is fortunate to have his wife, Pat Blackshear as director now. Our experience with both was very positive. :clap_1: