2008-02-13 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

a general informal advisory opinion that the motion that's on the table has good intentions —but 1 just think it's too broad and I think we should just stick with the case - by -case basis. Is this person trying —have malice in mind, and trying to have some sort of conniving motivation in putting their picture in the paper and disguising it as informing his constituents? I firmly believe that the state law is sufficient for what we have right now, and 1 think that in future cases, as they arise, should they arise, then we look at it and see if it's worth pursuing. CHAIR: DILL: What's that? CHAIR: If I might comment further. DILL: Yes, please. CHAIR: First of all, we're not here to look at intent. We're here to look at whether or not it's an advantage of the incumbent to use their photograph in these types of ads. And we need to limit our focus on that, not the intent —I mean, Mr. Yagong has great intent, very positive. What he does for the community is wonderful, and that goes without saying. And I appreciate you being here and commenting on this. The thing that needs to get resolved is, do photographs and taxpayer dollars that - -the meeting announcement, does that give the incumbent an unfair advantage? And you know, I just have to say in my heart that the more times you see somebody's picture in the newspaper, they're getting a great advantage, you know. You see my picture in the paper every Monday. Nice color, smiling. But the County taxpayers don't pay for that, you know, and I'm sure a lot of people recognize my face and the whole thing, but the County taxpayers do not pay for that. DILL: Just on the flip side of that, and I'm moving away from the intent issue, you're asking if this is an unfair advantage. The flip side of that is, are we then —by prohibiting Mr. Yagong or any elected official from putting their picture in the paper —are we limiting them from doing their duties to their fullest extent in serving their constituents? Mr. Yagong in his testimony made it clear that he saw a stark difference in community meeting attendance by having his picture, and not having his picture and text only. So if we do offer this informal advisory opinion and put limitations on their actions, are we tying their hands essentially and preventing them from serving the people that voted them into office and keeping them informed? I think we're running that risk if we were to prohibit them from doing that. CHAIR: You know, and again your argument is based on intent— DILL: - -No, no, no— CHAIR: - -and this informal advisory opinion is not based on intent. It's based on whether it's an advantage to the incumbent to have their photograph, and that's the entire argument. And that's the entire focus I think we need to look at. Is it an 32