2008-02-13 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

the people to the event, you know, whatever it takes. If it's a picture of the person who's going to be there to answer questions, if it's a person, or the mill, for example. If that's the focus of the meeting, then, you know, whatever the image is to get the people there to get the productivity of the meetings done. That's what's important. I don't think —and I certainly understand the election year situation —I'm not trying to conflict with that in any sense. But even if it is self - promotion, you're given a budget to use. And if it also includes the information about the meeting, what were the words used —to carry out duties as elected officers, to enhance accessibility. And those are important things, and if that picture is what accomplishes it, so be it. CHAIR: I think the argument might be that as an elected incumbent official, running your photo in the newspaper numerous times would give you an unfair advantage which is paid for by the taxpayers. Now remember that $7,500 budget is actually taxpayer dollars- MALANKA: -- Right— CHAIR: - -and should taxpayers be financing an enhancement of an elected official? And that's really the bottom line. Are we okay with financing enhancing an elected official's image? I mean, it's already tough enough for someone running against an elected official to get recognized, name recognition, image recognition, from their constituents. Now you're advocating allowing taxpayers to help that incumbent even more by allowing them to put their photos? And then, once you allow this, how are you going to regulate it? I mean, Mr. Yagong had a conservative photo. Mrs. Nae `ole had a quite larger photo with far less text. If you allow this, I can see this system running amok and having larger- than -life photos with three, four words saying meeting, wherever. LUM: Then you'd better vote that person out. CHAIR: You're opening a can of worms if you're saying that it's okay. That's my view. Yes? NICHOLSON: And there I agree with Mr. Yagong when he said ultimately, the voters decide. So they're going to decide whether that is offensive or not, whether they think it's supporting a public service or supporting a campaign issue. But what we're looking at, just to clarify, we're looking at should an elected official be able to use their photo in a paid advertisement? CHAIR: Is it an unfair advantage? NICHOLSON: Is it an unfair advantage— CHAIR: --for them to use their photo -- NICHOLSON: --for them to use public funds versus private funds— CHAIR: That's the issue. 22