⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
In the absence of a proven “quid pro quo”, that is, there is no proof that the relatives of counsel were employed contingent upon the firm receiving county legal business and/or the employment of the Counsel’s relatives has not been shown to have materially enhanced the firm’s opportunities to receive county business. There exists, at best, an appearance of a conflict of interest.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
County Counsel should have disclosed the fact that his wife and son were employed by Cota, Duncan & Cole.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
There is the appearance of a conflict of interest and the appearance of unethical behavior by County Counsel with regard to failure to disclosure interest.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 1In the absence of a proven “quid pro quo”, that is, there is no proof that the relatives of counsel were employed contingent upon the firm receiving county legal business and/or the employment of the Counsel’s relatives has not been shown to have materially enhanced the firm’s opportunities to receive county business. There exists, at best, an appearance of a conflict of interest.
-
CL2 Page 1County Counsel should have disclosed the fact that his wife and son were employed by Cota, Duncan & Cole.
-
CL3 Page 1There is the appearance of a conflict of interest and the appearance of unethical behavior by County Counsel with regard to failure to disclosure interest.
-
CL4In the absence of a proven “quid pro quo”, that is, there is no proof that the relatives of counsel were employed contingent upon the firm receiving county legal business and/or the employment of the Counsel’s relatives has not been shown to have materially enhanced the firm’s opportunities to receive county business. There exists, at best, an appearance of a conflict of interest.
-
CL5County Counsel should have disclosed the fact that his wife and son were employed by Cota, Duncan & Cole.
-
CL6There is the appearance of a conflict of interest and the appearance of unethical behavior by County Counsel with regard to failure to disclosure interest.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Madera County
County
Madera County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office