My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-07-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2006-2010
>
2007-07-11 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/30/2011 2:05:04 PM
Creation date
6/30/2011 1:56:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chair: No, but the statements you've made to Mr. Bishop. You knew that Councilwoman <br />Nae `ole, or at least in your opinion — thought that Council member Nae `ole, was <br />violating the Code of Ethics, did you not? <br />Hale: I am not looking at these, you need to point that part out to me— <br />Chair: —Well, you did say that she was using her staff to do personal work? <br />Hale: Yes. <br />Chair: Do you not know that that is a violation of the County Ethics Code? <br />Hale: Well, yes, I think it is a violation. <br />Chair: You did make statements or innuendo suggesting that she tried to solicit campaign <br />funds, and do you not realize that that's a violation of the Code of Ethics? So, my <br />question to you is, why didn't you bring it before us and petition us at an earlier <br />time? Why did you choose to just take it to the media and not pursue it in the <br />proper direction that it should have been pursued? <br />Hale: My apologies for that. I answered in anger, too. And I did take it. I took it the <br />same day and nobody could help me. So I sought to get counsel, and I did it very <br />quickly, too. I went to Casey. I didn't know. In fact if you look at the book, I <br />went to the right people. It was the County Clerk. <br />Chair: Is Casey Jarman one of your witnesses today? She's on your witness list. <br />Hale: Yes, and Ken Goodenow. <br />Strauss: Let me clarify something for the Chair, and I think it started at the beginning when <br />you talked about both sides. There aren't two sides here. There is an ethics <br />investigation, Ms. Hale is a witness. We did not subpoena any witnesses. We <br />suggested witnesses that you may want to hear from. What you do is up to you. <br />Again, we are not presenting a case. We didn't call any witness. That is up to <br />you. If you want to, you can. So, that is not the way we responded to this dispute. <br />We did not review this as a contested case. My reading of the rules shows that as <br />you stated before, it is an investigative hearing. We don't have a side. <br />Chair: Kendall? <br />Sharpless: Yes —in the normal course of office events, are there procedures within your <br />Human Resource rules and regs, or maybe if you're a member of a union, in terms <br />of resolving office disputes? <br />Hale: We are not part of the union, and as far as having office disputes, I would have to <br />go to my superior, which would be Emily Nae `ole. <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.