2008-02-13 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

ASHIDA: -- because you have a situation where you are allowing a non - incumbent to get a lot of face time, if that's what this Board is concerned about, you know, which is why when you opine on something like this, understand that you might have far- reaching consequences that you may not expect, anticipate, or may even want. DILL: I just —we're in discussion, right? CHAIR: Right. But we do have a motion on the floor. DILL: Yeah —no, I want to discuss the motion. Just to kind of echo what Lincoln was saying, I think by offering an informal advisory opinion, we might be limiting ourselves to what we can look at. And I think at our last meeting we had discussed parameters of investigating on a case -by -case basis. Being that we already have this state law in effect, and I think that we can use that as a guideline for future cases, and if we do offer an informal advisory opinion, we might be limiting ourselves or —that might be opening a whole can of worms as well. 1 do like the idea of the February 1 S` date, but I don't know if the risk of trying to limit ourselves for future cases or whatnot —if it's worth it or not. LUM: It sounds like, from what Lincoln is saying, that the bigger problem would be changing what we're saying from candidate to anybody. I mean, the state law is very specifically to somebody that's filing. And we get into trouble when we try to go out beyond that to allow other people to take advantage. ASHIDA: Then the question becomes whether this Board has jurisdiction over non - County employees. LUM: Yes. DILL: Right, right. LUM: More and more it seems like you've got the solution. CHAIR: But why would we —I don't understand why we'd need jurisdiction over non - County employees. ASHIDA: Because your jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the Code of Ethics as it applies to County officers and employees. CHAIR: Absolutely, and that's all we want to do. We don't want the jurisdiction of going beyond that. ASHIDA: The state law as written right now says no person —it doesn't say no government officer or employee who is a candidate for public office. It says no person. So as written, it includes everybody, right, basically everybody. DILL: So, for your example, using Mr. McClure and Mr. Yagong, Mr. McClure would be in violation of the state law. But if we offer and pass the motion that's on the table, he wouldn't be in violation of our informal advisory opinion. 0111