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

Home

mailing, and not the 8,800 registered voters in lower Puna. I even questioned that part. The thing I want to know is, it is not the honesty of Mr. Safarik that I am questioning. I'm questioning the propriety of what he is doing. He is an elected official. His ethical standard has got to be just a little bit higher than the general public. I feel this is very important. If there was any question or doubt in sending this out he should have contacted the ethics committee ahead of time and said "Here, is there a problem with this mail out." Now, I believe that is a common mistake. If there is a questionable mail out or a questionable thing, they do go to the ethics committee and find out do I have a problem with this particular mail out, or do I have a problem with doing certain things. Am I violating the ethics law? I feel that should be adamant with the elected officials because they are responsible for public trust. If it was inadvertent, fine. Hopefully that inadvertent (inaudible) does take place in the future and that everybody can understand or learn from it. This particular session, you folks have to be very, very careful when you put something out there on public stationary because then it becomes public knowledge. And that is about all I have. I hope this can be resolved very easily. Like I say, it sounds like it's an honest mistake made by Mr. Safarik If it is so, and you the Ethics Board feels that that is correct, I have no problem with that. No problem whatsoever. Thank you. RW: Sounds good, thanks. Are there any questions for Mr. Olesen? Let the record reflect, I think at this point I want to make the record reflect that both Mr. Olesen and Ms. Stocksdale were referring specifically to the package in their Petition filing which was the so called Second Quarter 2006 report. That's the one, specifically which has the last line, as an afterthought, I gather on the 2006 report which was mailed to the majority of the constituents, as I understand. That is the one with an afterthought, it almost seems "Please check out my website at http:A \Garysafarik.org." which was a campaign website. And I think that is the heart of the issue here. Not prior to June 2006, which was a letter Mr. Safarik put out on County stationary. It's a cover letter, with the same identical enclosure attached. So, we will come back to that point and we can discuss the pros and cons of that in a moment. I want everyone to understand that the specific charges that you two brought was related to that July, we presume July, Second Quarter 2006 mail out. Correct? Okay. NO: We didn't receive it. RW: You didn't? You did not receive it? NO: We didn't receive the first one. RW: Ah, you didn't receive the first one. Well okay. Well okay. KKS: May I ask a question? RW: Yes. KKS: Mr. Joseph, with you living in Puna Makai, did you receive the first? WJ: I did not receive the first. I only received the second mailing. KKS: Did you receive the first, Mr. Dionne? The first mailing?