2008-07-16 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

with post - employment, and Section 2 -85(b) appears to prohibit the rehiring of persons who leave the County. Ms. Schoen explained that the intent of Section 2 -85(b) was probably to avoid having a former County employee disclose information gained from their County employment to a new, private employer, such as in Ms. Oropallo's situation with which they'd just dealt. On the other hand, Section 2- 91.2(c) specifically says that nothing in this section shall prohibit any agency of the County from contracting with the former officer or employee to act on matters on behalf of the County. Ms. Schoen said that the County Ethics Code mirrors the State's code. Section 84 -15 of the State's code is the same as the County's Section 2 -85, except that the word "is" is missing from 2 -85. If 2 -85 had the "is" in it, it would mean the County could not enter into a contract with a person that is currently represented by a former employee. Without the "is," 2 -85 appears to preclude the hiring of a former employee. Ms. Schoen said that Senate Bill 2710, which was recently passed by the legislature, makes it clear that the practice of rehiring retired or former employees does not violate the code of ethics. She said it appeared the missing "is" was an oversight. She asked the Board members if they would support an amendment to the County Code to correct the section. If so, she would set about to amend the Code to be consistent and to reflect the legislature's bill. Ms. Lum stated that the wording of Section 2 -85(b) was a total mess, even if the word "is" were inserted. It was grammatically flawed and confusing. The Chair asked what Ms. Schoen needed from the Board, and she said just their support. If they didn't support the change, she would not proceed with it. Ms. Nicholson asked whether Ms. Schoen would draft the change and present it to the Council, and Ms. Schoen said yes. The Board discussed ways to rephrase Section 2- 85(b), and the Chair said he was worried about straying too far from the State's wording. Ms. Schoen suggested they work on the wording independently and come back to the next meeting with their suggestions. In the meantime, she would research the phrasing of the other jurisdictions and see if they made more sense. After further discussion, the Board agreed with Ms. Schoen that the wording needed to be changed. Ms. Schoen was to research the wording in other jurisdictions and present her findings to the Board so they could discuss them and come up with the right wording. The Chair directed that the matter be placed on next month's agenda. Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved that the Board pursue a possible amendment to Section 2 -85(b) of the Hawaii County Code regarding the prohibition of contracting with former employees and retirees, because the language is not clear. Ms. Lum seconded the motion, stating that the language was also in conflict. All members voted aye. 21