2006-10-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

Board of Ethics Minutes - Regular Session October 11, 2006 He thought it might be a good idea if we had the same opportunities, when warranted, for people who might violate the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Ms. Lum felt that the Ethics Board is making judgments, and this is a different area. The Board finds people in violation, prepares an opinion, and the decision goes back to that person's employer for remediation. As the Board of Ethics do we now want to impose a judgment remediation like fining? Ms. Sharpless said she liked the idea of being in step, not compliant, but following the lead of the State commission. She believes that the main responsibility of this committee is to teach and not be punitive. The concept of ethical behavior is sometimes the last thing that anybody ever thinks of and if the Board concentrated on public education, teaching, and coaching- -that kind of thing- -the game would be better. Over history we haven't seen a lot of prevention because of stiff punitive measures. She would rather go at it through education, teaching, and coaching- -that kind of stuff. Mr. Inouye said that a punitive fine is an option. Even though the Board would have the power to fine people, it wouldn't have to do it, but it is still an option, a tool. He agreed with Mr. Joseph that the Ethics Board should follow the State lead. If the State has done this, then this is something good. Mr. Joseph said that it is an option to give the Board some teeth. Each case would be different. In the rare situation where someone blatantly violates the Code of Ethics which ends up costing the taxpayers money, or costing the Board money, because of having to hold special meetings, we would have the opportunity to fine them. It doesn't mean that we would have to fine them, but it does give us the option. Ms. Sharpless felt that there has to be some standard to go by. If you say it is a blatant situation, how do we decide what is blatant? One man's idea of blatant may be another man's idea of business as usual. She said that she is uncomfortable with saying "That's really bad and it is going to cost you more" or "It's sort of bad and it is not going to cost you as much." Perhaps the criteria could be the higher the position, or the higher the number of events, or the number of documents, the higher the fine. Mr. Williams said that enabling legislation would be needed to do this. We would need a county ordinance and the details would have to be worked out. We would have plenty of input into drafting such an ordinance. He felt that if we went for an ordinance the chances of it passing are very good since the State has already passed a similar ordinance. We have that precedent and we are consistent with shadowing them (the State) and he would guess that other county governments would do likewise. It would prevent the appearance of the Board of Ethics as being just a paper tiger. He supported Mr. Inouye and Mr. Joseph and said he feels that we need to explore this again with the Corporation Counsel. Ms. Leithead -Todd agreed to draft something. She always thought that one of the problems with Ethics Commission and the hearing is that there wasn't any teeth to the 2