2007-07-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

Chair: As I am a layperson, I would rather stay away from conducting this as a formal trial, but instead conduct this as an investigation, which I believe we are very competent in doing. Roehrig: Right. Why don't I give a heads up of what these items are, and then your attorney can — Chair: Well, I am sorry, but I am going to limit you to a five - minute opening statement. Roehrig: That's fine. Chair: And, if you would like to do that in within your five - minute opening statement- Roehrig: —I think I should— Chair: —in all fairness to both sides. Roehrig: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. The first is the standard of care that is involved here, is involved in the Code of Ethics, and in particular the section that is, that is presented is the question of whether there was unwarranted conduct in the office relating to personal business or campaign matters, and that seems to be the test. That's the first item we were going to pass out. The second item relates to the admissibility of the letters we received from Mr. Strauss. He says he does not want the commission to consider those letters. If you take a look at the Rule 408 — Chair: —Are those letters already submitted? Roehrig: Those letters are submitted. Chair: Then we have already read them. Roehrig: Okay, then I won't raise that issue. The last matter that procedurally we wanted to discuss is that we have a number of witness statements that you folks have, and we think that is fine procedure for you just to question the witnesses and ask them if this is their statement and any other questions the commission might have. The last thing I would say is this, as far as the opening statement. I think this is a very important proceeding. This is a very sensitive proceeding, and this proceeding is unprecedented. The reason why it is important, the reason why unprecedented, is because this proceeding has been driven by dynamic political forces at work in this community and particularly in Puna. This dispute isn't just before this commission. It has been on the blogosphere almost daily, and the blogosphere has been driving this dispute, tearing people apart. The blogosphere, in my judgment, is like an empire where whoever writes the blog is the emperor, and he or she chooses the point of view of anonymous names, and the scurrilous matter that is discussed in the blog is, in my judgment, is —tends to be un- American. However, that is part of life, the Justice White said, that the responsibility for the public, whether irresponsible speech is more speech. So we are here in this process, and 14