My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-08-03 Board of Ethics Minutes Special Meeting kd
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2006-2010
>
2006-08-03 Board of Ethics Minutes Special Meeting kd
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/30/2011 2:02:42 PM
Creation date
6/30/2011 1:56:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
campaign piece rather than a legislative newsletter. So they in enacted rules in the State <br />legislature to say, no, if you are going are going to mail a newsletter it is going to have to be <br />strictly paid with the legislative allowance. Or if you're going to send a separate newsletter paid <br />by your campaign funds, it has to be paid strictly by campaign fund. But you cannot take a little <br />bit of this money and a little bit of that and spend it on the same piece because they were <br />concerned that the lines would get blurred in terms of what was an official legislative piece and <br />what was a campaign piece. <br />AL: Okay, thank you. <br />RW: So, we are getting way too much detail here from (inaudible) on this thing. I think the <br />selling point here is - -for you to get it - -that your link to the campaign website with the <br />Government stationary was... <br />GS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further statement. If you will allow me, that whatever <br />your rulings are in this body, I would ask that you rule two things. First of all, the first mailing <br />was an appropriate use of taxpayers' money, and that communication was authorized. The <br />second mailing, although identical to the first, did contain reference to a website that was not <br />appropriate. That I did not intentionally and it was an inadvertent situation, because although <br />when I did get that information over the cell phone from my secretary, I really did not focus on <br />that addition. It escaped me. And therein lays the truth of the whole matter. <br />RW: And that sounds like logical way to proceed if the Board feels... <br />WJ: I do have a couple of questions. <br />RW: Sure, shoot. <br />WJ: Your second mailing. Exactly how many people received this second mailing? <br />GS: We sent out 400. <br />BLT: There is actually a clarification. And that is because Mr. Safarik sent 400 pieces down to <br />be mailed. But they had not all gone through the process and the complaint came in and the <br />County Clerk, when the complaint went to her, immediately stopped the rest of the mailings <br />from going out, because she did not want to, if there was a problem, she did not want to make it <br />bigger that it had to be. So there were actually only 122 pieces that were mailed in July because <br />the County Clerk stopped the rest from being mailed out. <br />GS: Well, I didn't realize that. <br />WJ: Well, I never won anything in my life but I was one of the fortunate few that got one. <br />(Laughter) <br />RW: Got your lucky stories. <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.