2006-08-09 Board of Ethics Minutes regular

Home

trust, but the trust is not specifically held in that person's name, the income would need to be disclosed. If a person has access to and can use the money in a bank account that is in the name of that person's child, it would need to be disclosed. Ms. Lum said she could not say what could or should be done with the current form. Her opinion, however, is that the form currently being used is not in compliance with the County's own Code of Ethics. However, whether the Code should be changed to be more specific, or the disclosure form changed to take everything into account, she does not know. Ms. Lum said she had obtained a state form which has a section that specifically says that the person disclosing, and the spouse and dependent children, are joined. This could be away to clear up the County's form. Ms. Sharpless said she believed the State Ethics Commission was the originator of the disclosure form, which was nine pages long, including instructions. Then the State and the counties made their own forms. In the process, bits and pieces were left out. They should look at the State Ethics Commission form as the root document. She believes the current County form was a cut - and -paste job. Her personal belief, from all that she has read, is that the expectation of conduct is the highest for all State and County officers, employees, and others. It is clear that the purpose of the law is to provide the highest level of confidence and trust to the public while still protecting the constitutional rights of those who serve. Therefore, the weight is more on the strict and rigorous side. She feels just putting a reminder on the form is not enough and that people should receive formal training or sign an acknowledgment regarding their accountability. The Chair asked Ms. Sharpless if she was recommending some hours of training for County officers, and she said it could be part of the Sunshine Law training. It could be done in a way that is not threatening or an invasion of privacy, yet efficient. Ms. Leithead -Todd said it would be good for the Board to come up with a set of instructions to attach to the financial disclosure form, explaining the terminology. She does not believe the Code as written requires the disclosure of spousal and children's interest, unless a person has access to it or beneficial use of it. She said the Council years ago had wrestled with whether spousal income disclosure should be required, and they agreed not to require it. It came up when Keola Childs was serving. He was married to a Greenwell and was concerned because he did not know the extent of his wife's family's holdings. He was not involved in the day -to- day management and running of the Greenwell business. He did not know if he could even access the financial information. Ms. Leithead -Todd further explained that there already is a requirement on the Council that if anyone has a conflict of interest on an issue, it has to be disclosed prior to any vote. A common disclosure is that one's spouse is a member of the HGEA, when the Council is dealing with union issues. If a person serving on a board or commission has a conflict of interest, that person cannot vote on that issue. It does get questionable on the issue of having access to, or benefit from, a spouse or dependent's income. The Board may want to look at proposing an amendment. If they want the disclosure of spousal and dependent children's financial interest, it would require an amendment to the Code. This means coming up with a proposal which would be sent to the Council. It would be up to the Council on whether it gets adopted.