2006-08-09 Board of Ethics Minutes regular

Home

Board waited until September 13 for the hearing, it would be too late. He said he would be in favor of holding a special meeting prior to then. The Chair agreed with Mr. Joseph, as the outcome of the petitions could cast a cloud on the election. The Chair suggested that a member of the Board serve Mr. Safarik, as a back -up service. Upon that service, the 20 days would start ticking. The Chair volunteered to serve Mr. Safarik personally, and if not him, his aide. Ms. Lum said she, too, wanted the special meeting heard before September. The Chair said he wanted the minutes to reflect that the Board does intend to pursue a special meeting, with the date to be worked out, and that he was personally willing as Chair to put a notice in Mr. Safarik's aide's hands at the least. Mr. Ashida said that if they were planning a special meeting, they would need to announce the date, time, and place at today's meeting in order to avoid having to publish the notice in the newspaper. After further discussion, the Board agreed that the special meeting would be held on August 30, 2006, and the Chair questioned whether there would be a quorum. All members raised their hands that they could attend. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to have a special meeting on August 30, 2006, to hear the petition against Councilman Safarik. Mr. Inouye seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The location of the special meeting was still to be determined. The Chair asked Ms. Leithead -Todd to prepare a letter for Mr. Safarik, which he would pick up later today and personally serve. Ms. Leithead -Todd said there were a couple of matters under Rule 4.8 that the Board should address. Letters acknowledging receipt of the petitions were already sent out, and steps were taken under Rule 4.7 to provide the County officer an opportunity to respond. As August 30, 2006, is 21 days from today's date, and as long as Mr. Safarik receives notice today, under Rule 4.8 the Board could render that Mr. Safarik received his 20 days' notice. They could also take into consideration the fact that Mr. Safarik was previously sent the first petition via e -mail and regular mail, and that the second petition is essentially identical to the first petition. The Chair at this point told the members to look at the Mr. Safarik's letter and the County stationery, but Ms. Leithead -Todd instructed them not to discuss the subject matter or substance of the petitions at this time, as the appropriate parties are not present. Only procedural matters should be dealt with at this time. Ms. Leithead -Todd asked if the Board desired her to get additional information related to the petitions and to do legal research on whether there have been similar petitions or issues with ethics boards, and to write a report for the Board. The Chair said yes. But he still wanted the Board to look at Mr. Safarik's cover letter on the County letterhead. He said his point is that if the cover letter itself is the offending document, and the other documents were just attached to the letter, he wanted counsel to research whether this was done by others before, or whether it 0