2006-10-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

Board of Ethics Minutes - Regular Session October 11, 2006 commission. There are constraints which limit what can be done and a written reprimand carries no financial impact. She feels that even small fines, like $25.00, may provide an incentive. She gave an example where Judge Gaddis would fine the attorneys $25.00 if they showed up late for court. It was a small fine but it was an incentive for the attorneys to be on time. Even though it wasn't a $500.00 fine, it had the impact of getting the word out to people that there was a consequence. Another point she made is that the Board members donate their time to the commission, but there is still a cost to running the hearings. There is the cost of publication, the cost of Xeroxing, the cost employee time, and salary expenses. In cases when someone has violated the code she thinks it is appropriate that there is a fine as it would help to underwrite the expenses of having an Ethics Commission. The fine would also have a deterrent effect. People pay attention when there is fine, even if it is a small one. She feels that if people are asked to serve on a board in a semi judicial fashion that they ought to have some teeth and they should have some authority. This was the big issue that the State Ethics Commission had. She felt that $500.00 is not a huge fine when you look at some of the kinds of cases that they (the State) have had. There have been State cases where someone has used a computer, or used government Xeroxing machines, or physically moved government equipment to a campaign headquarters. These were blatant violations. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph made a motion that Corporation Counsel drafts a letter to the County Council recommending that the Board of Ethics have the authority to fine employees or officials up to $500.00 for violation of the County Ethics Code. Mr. Inouye seconded the motion. Mr. Williams, Mr. Inouye, and Ms. Lum voted aye, Ms. Kendall voted nay. Motion carried. Discussion: No bulk mailings by the incumbency prior to an election. Mr. Joseph questioned why politicians can use taxpayers' dollars to send out bulk mail emphasizing all the great things that they did, just prior to an election. He sees it as an unfair advantage, by using their incumbency, and by putting a letterhead on the mailings. He knows that it is legal, but does not feel it is appropriate. He would like it if the incumbents are unable to do mailings six months prior to the primary election. Ms. Leithead -Todd stated that currently there is no rule regarding this issue. She indicated that perhaps it could be imposed when they file for re- election. Another option would be when they pull their nomination papers. Many times incumbents will pull papers in March, but not file until June. Pulling early informs others that the incumbent is running for office. It is intended to discourage other people from pulling papers because they know that the incumbent is running. This would be an amendment to the Council rules. The rules govern how the incumbents may spend their discretionary funds. The rules are decided by resolution. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph made a motion to have Corporation Counsel draft a letter to the County Council recommending that the Council adopt a rule setting a time limit on 3