2006-08-03 Board of Ethics Minutes Special Meeting kd

Home

RW: I understand your comments as I pointed out already. Both your comments, charges, are based on the second quarter mailing. And whatever was it your research, your diligence or just your instincts that said that was a no, no? He just crossed a line here, in a sense. NO: Essentially. RW: Essentially. The opinion we have here from the State Ethics Board is just virtually identical to that. Although Mr. Safarik explained why he feels perhaps, that his offense is a lesser ones than this, even, the point is, was the second quarter cover sheet contained the link to the website - -that was the issue. Mr. Safarik is taking the initiative, if I've got it straight to rectify that situation publicly and to refund the County Director of Finance for the amount incurred for all the postage and mailing expenses associated with that second quarter mail out. Is that correct? GS: That is correct. AL: I think it should be clear that, to me, it comes under this commingling. That would be advisory opinion of our little reference number six, the Advisory Opinion No. 04 -04 references in the last line, it says "Its the commingling of ...." So that the part that's the update on project and program funding is not, doesn't seem to me, to be any different than the first one. RW: We are scrambling to find where you are. Where are you? AL: I'm looking at this document that was handed out that had all the little numbered... and its page 4, number 6, this one that Bobby handed out with all the little numbers on it. RW: Yeah. AL: ... and its number 6? RW: Public doesn't have this document, I don't believe. AL: Page 4. At the top the Advisory Opinion No. 04 -04 references legislative rules that prohibit joint use of campaign funds and legislative allowances to pay for newsletters. So the opinions prevent the use, anyway that's campaign funds. But what it mentions here is the commingling so that's the... RW: So (inaudible) to the exact offense, as it were. BLT: Actually, that opinion there had been prior legislative practice where the legislative allowance has changed over the years and in some years there was not enough money in the legislative allowance for legislators to mail a newsletter to their entire district so they had gone to the campaign spending commission and asked "Can I use my campaign funds to pay for mailing out my legislative newsletter ?" And earlier, back in 1998, the campaign spending commission said yes, you can spend your money because it is a legitimate, related duty to being an elected official. But, since 1998 there have been concerns at the State Legislature that by using campaign funds to pay for the newsletter there was an appearance that the newsletter was now a 13