2006-08-09 Board of Ethics Minutes regular

Home

civil agent to serve, but it did not appear that service was effected yet. Therefore, if Mr. Safarik wanted personal service, the 20 days' notice had not yet commenced. Ms. Leithead -Todd said that under her interpretation of the rules, the process is informal. As long as the Board knows that a petition was sent to the County officer or employee, and can be sure that it was received, they can make the assumption that the officer or employee received notice. She clocked the 20 days' notice at around August 17, 2006. However, a response was needed from Mr. Safarik, so she was looking at September 13, 2006, as the date for the hearing. However, the rules also indicate that the Board can proceed, even if a response was not received, if it has given the respondent the opportunity to respond. The Chair asked what specifically was being served on Mr. Safarik, and Ms. Leithead- Todd said both petitions, as in the interest of fairness he would need to see them to respond intelligently. She said the petitions were also sent to Mr. Safarik via e -mail on July 26, 2006. The rules are ambiguous in that there is nothing in the informal process which states how service is to be accomplished. In the formal advisory opinion process, service is via certified mail. Personal service is not required, although the respondent could refuse to accept the certified mail. As long as the Board is confident that the officer or employee was given notice of the petition, it can clock the 20 days from when it is sure the petition was received. The Board's secretary said the petitions were also sent to Mr. Safarik via regular U.S. mail. Mr. Ashida said that Mr. Safarik is under the impression that the clock is not running, because when he told Mr. Ashida that he wanted personal service, Mr. Ashida said all right. So if the Board decides service occurred sooner, it needs to so inform Mr. Safarik. Mr. Joseph said he believed the clock started running and that the 20 days commenced. Ms. Leithead -Todd said if the Board is comfortable that the petitions were mailed and e- mailed to Mr. Safarik, the hearing could be scheduled for September 13, which would be more than 20 days from when he was given notice and would be adequate time to respond. The Chair asked Mr. Ashida if he concurred. Mr. Ashida said that his office does not have a vested interest in how this issue turns out. However, he was concerned for the Board, as he did not want any accusation that it was dragging its feet. Ms. Sharpless asked Mr. Ashida whether he had promised Mr. Safarik personal delivery of the petitions. Mr. Ashida said no, but that Mr. Safarik indicated he would like personal service. Mr. Ashida told him okay and that he would arrange for the service. The Board's secretary then had a civil agent pick up the petitions for service. Ms. Sharpless said that based on Mr. Ashida's indication to Mr. Safarik that personal service would be done, the Board should stand by that. Mr. Joseph said that he is a constituent of District 5, Mr. Safarik's district, and has serious concerns about this issue. He would like to see it resolved before the election. If the 3