2006-08-09 Board of Ethics Minutes regular

Home

Ms. Leithead -Todd explained that the request for copies of the executive minutes came to her office. Under law, when executive session minutes are no longer necessary to preserve the privacy of individuals, they have to be released upon request. She reviewed the requested minutes and since they disclosed no personal or financial information on individuals, they were required to be released. This communication was put on the agenda to show the Board that the request for minutes came in and they were released. Ms. Lum asked whether, when a request like this comes in, the minutes are reviewed and not automatically handed over, and Ms. Leithead -Todd said yes. Ms. Lum said she did not want there to be an invasion of privacy. Ms. Leithead -Todd said that if it would be an invasion to release them, she would write to the requesting party to explain why the minutes would not be released. In lieu of that, the personal information would be redacted and the rest released. Motion and Vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the communication, Ms. Sharpless seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Communication No. 2006 -79: The Chair asked Mr. Ashida to come forward and provide a chronology of events. Mr. Ashida said that Mayor Kim received letters complaining about Councilman Gary Safarik from Kaniu Kinimaka - Stocksdale and Norman Olesen. Mr. Ashida said he would respond to the letters on the Mayor's behalf. Mr. Ashida informed both Ms. Kinimaka- Stocksdale and Mr. Olesen that the Board of Ethics would be the proper forum in which to bring up their complaints, and they were provided with the petition form. They subsequently both filed petitions. Ms. Kinimaka - Stocksdale and Mr. Olesen wanted their petitions resolved as soon as possible due to the upcoming September election. Therefore, Mr. Ashida contacted Mr. Safarik and informed him about the petitions, making it clear that the Office of the Corporation Counsel would not be providing him legal representation in this matter. He also put this in writing. He informed Mr. Safarik that he could seek a resolution by the Council, authorizing reimbursement of his legal fees and costs if he were successful in the outcome of the petitions. This was done on a recent impeachment case against Council members, wherein the legal fees were paid by the County. Mr. Ashida said he did not want Mr. Safarik to have the mistaken impression that what he told the Corporation Counsel's Office would be confidential. He also provided Mr. Safarik with a copy of the rules of the Board of Ethics. The rules were also provided to Ms. Kinimaka- Stocksdale. Mr. Ashida said that Mr. Safarik told him that he would not waive the 20 -day notice requirement, which is in the rules. Mr. Ashida said he read this rule, which was strangely worded. It was not clear whether the 20 days' notice is an absolute right, but he felt that to be fair, Mr. Safarik should be given the 20 days' notice. In addition, Mr. Safarik had indicated he would only accept personal service of the petitions. The Board of Ethics never had this situation before. The whole process is supposed to be informal, and taxpayer money should not be spent hiring agents to serve County employees or officers. But in this case, and since the Board's attorney, Ms. Leithead -Todd was on vacation, he authorized hiring an agent to serve the petitions. The primary is coming up shortly, and he wanted to do things by the book. He did not want a challenge about how Mr. Safarik was served. The petitions promptly were given to a 2