2006-02-08 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular

Home

KK: Moved and seconded that we find that there is no conflict of interest in Mr. Onizuka serving on the County Liquor Commission. Is there further discussion, or any clarification to the motion? WJ: I would just want to add, provided he excuses himself should anything from his employer come before the Liquor Commission. KK: Are you giving that as an amendment to the motion? WJ: There may be a conflict if he was to vote on anything that should arise to the Liquor Commission through his employment. KK: Are you offering that as an amendment, or -- WJ: Yes -- KK: - -as a precautionary measure? PKO: I can put that in the opinion, and you can review it next time and vote. I'll put something about he will not vote on Oceanside matters if they should come up. KK: So it doesn't have to go in as a formal amendment right now? Okay. I think that is, you had established that awhile ago. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. KI: Aye. AL: Aye. WJ: Aye. KK: The Chair votes aye. Those who object, nay? Motion carried. ASHIDA: Thank you very much. KK: Thank you. Now here is where we're going to deviate from the —could you explain yourself more on that? PKO: Okay, it's just a suggestion, but we have I believe the next three petitions are basically the same issue, and we have Mr. Ganigan's continued petition, which was on the same issue, so I'm wondering if we should finish up Mr. Ganigan and then discuss whether the others that are still pending could be heard together, or, you know, hearing from them and their counsel. And perhaps, if they hear what decision you make in Mr. Ganigan's case, it might affect how they proceed with their own case. It's just a suggestion. You can go in the order it's in. WJ: So was Petition 05 -11 withdrawn? PKO: Right. So there are two left, two new petitions on the same issue, and then Mr. Ganigan's continued one. 6