2008-02-13 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

advantage? And if you think it is, then you should support not having photographs, period, by elected officials. DILL: Okay, but you know, if I'm dwelling on intent too much, then I think maybe we're moving away from the motion that's on the table. If it is —if the core of this issue, like you mentioned, is whether or not this is an advantage or not, then we should change the motion, or dismiss this motion and have something that reflects what you say the core of this issue is. CHAIR: And I agree. I'd be in favor of removing — withdrawing this motion and changing- LUM: - -The second withdraws first -- CHAIR: -- because 1 personally would favor not having photographs, period, because it is an unfair advantage. MALANKA: If I may say, if Mr. Dill is focusing on intent, as you have indicated, I'm concerned that there is too much of a focus on a photo. I mean, if you see a name, the same thing could be construed. I think that if you put Brenda Ford in capital letters in a half -page ad as many times as she wants to use the funds— CHAIR: - -as long as it says community meeting on it, that's fine. MALANKA: Right. But I think that that could be as unfair an advantage as the photographs. DILL: I agree. And Mr. Joseph mentioned that by allowing —his opinion —by allowing them to publish your photo, it's opening a can of worms, and he referenced Ms. Nae `ole's size of her picture. And then what's next? We're going to have nothing but a face and two words. Same thing goes with what you're saying. If we limit it to text, then what is it going to be? Community meeting in eight point and then Dominic's name in bold, capital letters? Which comes back to the core of what my opinion is, is that maybe we're just delving in too deep on this. And by offering an informal advisory opinion or taking a stance on this policy, we're limiting ourselves and we're jumping it a little too far, you know. I think that we're running that risk. ASHIDA: What Mr. Dill is saying is why the United States Supreme Court refused to define what pornography was, and instead they said you'll know it when you see it. DILL: Right, exactly. Yeah, that's what they said- - ASHIDA: - -What they said is it's incapable of actual verbal description, but it needs to be assessed on a case -by -case basis. Now, you know, obviously I don't vote you five do -- and this is a terrific argument— discussion and argument that's going on. It's very thought provoking. One comment I have, though, is the resolution as written that was distributed to each of you, and Mr. Joseph, you have signed it, and I'm prepared to attest to it —it says that this is the nature and scope of the inquiry —it's limited to this. Does 33