Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> his constituents an additional means of communicating with him and that <br /> <br /> it didn't dawn on him that it would be inappropriate; <br /> <br /> 21) Upon receiving the Petitions, the Council Member reviewed his letters, <br /> <br /> realized that the reference to the website was inappropriate and based <br /> <br /> upon his assumption that 400 letters had been mailed at a cost of $0.39 <br /> <br /> cents a piece, he reimbursed the County $252.00 to cover the cost of the <br /> <br /> July 2006 mailing. A copy of the check was provided; <br /> <br /> 22) Information received via email from the County Clerk indicated that the <br /> <br /> cost of the July 2006 newsletter (Xeroxing, envelopes, labels and postage) <br /> was actually $125.34 as only 122 pieces had been mailed. This did not <br /> <br /> include any other costs for use of County time, equipment, or facilities; <br /> <br /> 23) The Board, by a vote of three to two, found that the amount of $252.00 <br /> <br /> was reasonable restitution to cover reimbursement of the cost and <br /> <br /> incidental expenses related to the July 2006 mailing for the use of County <br /> <br /> time, equipment, facilities, property, and personnel; <br /> <br /> 24) The Hawaii State Ethics Commission issued Informal Advisory Opinion <br /> <br /> No. 2005-5 which concerned a similar complaint leveled against an <br /> <br /> elected state official. The Commission concluded that inclusion of a <br /> <br /> reference to a campaign website was a violation of the State Ethics Code, <br /> <br /> Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Section 84-13 (3); <br /> <br /> 25) HRS Section 84-13 (3) is very similar to Section 2-84 (b)(3) of the <br /> <br /> Hawaii County Code. The elected state official involved in informal <br /> <br /> Advisory Opinion No. 2005-5 agreed to reimburse the State a sum of <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7 <br />