2006-09-12 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Board of Ethics Minutes - Regular Session September 12, 2006 Discussion: Ms. Lum indicated that until the Board has received an actual Petition there will be no beginning action. All members voted aye to accept and file the communication. Communication No. 2006 -87: The High Road No. 2006 -2, dated July 2006. Motion and Vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the communication, Mr. Inouye seconded the motion and all members voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Petition No. 2006 -02 and 2006 -03: Review of Informal Advisory Opinion re: Gary Safarik, Councilmember for District 5, regarding a violation of Section 2- 83(b)(3) of the Hawaii County Code. Ms. Leithead -Todd indicated to the Chair that they can decide to accept the opinion as it is, and move to approve it, or if there are specific findings of fact the Board feels is not stated, or if it does not accurately reflect the evidence produced during the hearing, the Board can vote to strike or amend the proposed findings. Because there are only three members of the Board present, it would require a unanimous vote to bring any action. In addition to the Findings, the Board can decide if the Conclusion of Law, as drafted, accurately reflects the motion of the Board. Something not discussed is what happens once the Informal Advisory Opinion (IAO) is adopted. In the Proposed Findings, Page 9, item numbers 30, 31, and 32 are taken from the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board of Ethics. Usually complaints are filed after an elected official has left office and taken employment. The complaints are about whether they have violated the rules on post - employment. Other complaints are generally against employees. Those past IAO's were sent to the appointing authority for follow up. In this case, because it is an elected official, the rules state that the IAO will be forwarded to the Council. The Council reports back if they do anything with it. Normally an IAO states an action such as quitting a job or the issue of an apology letter. It is sent to the appointing authority who reports back by sending a copy of the apology letter. If it was a post - employment issue, they would send verification that employment had been terminated or that the steps required had been taken. In this case, because there had already been restitution paid, it is an unusual situation. The IAO is not requesting any further action and that was the motion of the Board. The rules still require that the IAO be sent to the County Council for their files, for notice, and serves the purpose of notifying other Councils that they may want to look at their own internal rules. In the Findings it is stated that, based on the testimony of Mr. Safarik who referenced the rules regarding the legislative allowance, the State Legislature have limitations on when newsletters can be mailed out. There is no such limitation, so perhaps the Council, upon reviewing this, may want to review their own internal rules and follow up to address those issues. The provision from the State Constitution is included because the creation 3