2006-01-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Nonverbatim

Home

Therefore, that sentence in the conclusion paragraph was amended to read: "The funds received by the Respondent are political campaign contributions as defined under State law and therefore are not considered as gifts which are to be reported to the Board of Ethics in a gift disclosure form." Chair Kawahara initialed the change and signed the opinion. He asked if there was a motion to adopt the amended Informal Advisory Opinion. Mr. Joseph so moved; Mr. Inouye seconded the motion; and all members voted aye on adopting the opinion, with recused Chair Williams abstaining. b. Petition No. 2005 -06: Review of Declaratory Ruling Regarding Information Required in Financial Disclosure Forms: Mr. Williams resumed as Chair. Ms. O'Toole informed the Board that she did not think it appropriate, and would prefer to delete, on page 2, the paragraph beginning, "The Board discussed." She does not feel the Board should put its "intent" concerning possible future action in its opinions and rulings. Mr. Joseph questioned whether this issue should be deferred, since Ms. O'Toole was to research the State's procedure on financial disclosures for its board and commission members. Ms. O'Toole said the Board's opinion needs to reflect what the actual law was at the time the petition was made. As the law existed at that time, people were complying. The Chair said he had requested the additional wording on the Board's intent because he wanted Mr. Frankel to know the Board would be pursuing the issue. He said he would be willing to write a personal letter to Mr. Frankel, informing him that the County is in compliance but that the Board would pursue the issue. He stated that the Board should follow its counsel's advice. Ms. Lum moved to adopt the Ruling with the following changes: deleting the paragraph beginning "The Board discussed," since it was about intent, and adding the word "currently" to the last sentence of the Ruling, so that it reads: "The Board concludes that in the absence of specific language in the Hawaii County Code requiring disclosure of the financial interests of a spouse, it is not currently required." Mr. Inouye seconded the motion, and all members voted aye on adopting the Ruling with the above changes. c. Petition No. 2005 -07: Review of Informal Advisory Opinion re lobbyists: Ms. O'Toole pointed out the same issue that was discussed on the 2005 -06 ruling —that the Board's intent had been added to the opinion, which she felt was inappropriate. The Chair and Ms. Lum stated they agreed with her. Mr. Joseph disagreed and expressed that as a community member and a lay person, he prefers to have the Board's intent stated, as that lets the petitioner and others know how the Board feels on an issue. He stated he preferred to keep the intent wording in the opinion. Ms. O'Toole said she didn't want to add in the Board's opinion actions taken subsequent to closing the hearing, such as recommending a code amendment which would delete the exemption for attorneys registering as lobbyists. 12