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

Home

WJ: Well, I consider myself well informed. I read the newspaper daily, and I take part and I listen to political discussions and I was on his mailing list when earlier he explained to us that it was the other voters, the ones that not necessarily reads the newspaper or listens to the commercials. GS: I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I purely picked out the names in a random nature. That is all it was, it has no method to it other than just a random mailing. What I mentioned is that we had a mailing that did not have a cover letter to it. That I sent out same information that just said legislative update that went to neighborhood watch programs and the community associations. BLT: May I. I'm going to interject something here as legal counsel. While I understand some of the direction of some of the questions, the real issues before the Board is whether the - -there are two issues - -and one is was the letter legitimate legislative newsletter that's allowed as part of Mr. Safarik's duties and under the Council rules, which provide for this district expenditure fund. Then, actually there are three questions, that is whether the newsletter is legitimate expenditure. The second is whether the Garysafarik.org is a campaign website, which I think he has already acknowledged, and third is the reference to the campaign website and whether that was a violation of the Ethics Code because it reference a campaign website. And those are the real issues. I don't know that the Board has the authority to go into the methods or the rational for legislators' selection of who is on the mailing list, if it's a question of was it legal for him to mail it out. And if you look at the opinions I think you can, and the rules you can draw your own conclusions about the newsletter itself was appropriate. RW: Yeah I was bothered. I would like to second that. By the way we are going way beyond the scope of what we are doing here, so I think we've pretty much discussed it. Now, if there are some really burning issues, Kendall, Wayne, any of you (inaudible). I think we are going way beyond the scope of this issue. You have heard the view of one decision at least, the opinions. I think that we all understand from Political Science 100 that incumbency is definitely an advantage across the nation, in all levels of government. So that just goes without saying. I understand the thrust of what you are saying though. It was a selective use of government funds to a selective audience, that is the gist of it. That's not really what the charge was here, so much. We have the June 6 mailing. We have basis up front, for knowing that was perfectly legitimate, legal, allowable, and legitimate. Any questions about that? Ms. Stocksdale? KKS: Yes. June 6 was never in question in my petition. Our petition only addressed the July mailing so why is June 6th being pushed into the issue? I don't understand. RW: Well, there were two mailings. How did this happen, that was the issue. How did this happen? Here came one that was signed... KKS: Is this for a comparison? Was this also part of my petition? RW: No, your petition, that's right. KKS: Just the July mailing. RW: Just the July issue and that is what we will narrow the rest of this hearing to, just July. 17