Laserfiche WebLink
JOSEPH.- - -have a problem with me, Mr. Dill, file a petition. <br />CHAIR: Listen to me— <br />JOSEPH: - -But I'm here with my petition — <br />CHAIR: - -I'm saying <br />JOSEPH: - -and I'm saying —and I'm saying that as Chairman of this Board, you have <br />prejudiced yourself and should recuse yourself. <br />CHAIR: Okay. <br />GENTRY.- Mr. Chair, may I make a comment? <br />CHAIR: Yes, please. <br />GENTRY: It seems tome that -1 hear what you say about it being posted. The <br />confidentiality, as I understand it, applies to all parties —the petitioner and the <br />respondent. The reason for the confidentiality is to afford the respondent a chance to <br />review or respond to a petition made against that person. In a sense, Mr. Joseph, you <br />biased everyone by public —by putting into a public forum your petition before it was <br />even submitted to the —to the Board of Ethics, in which case you just biased everyone <br />who taps into that blog. So in regard to that, I think that viewing anything that is <br />available in the public forum, we could have found all of that ourselves, which would <br />have sideswiped everyone, especially the person that you're claiming ethical violations <br />against. Because it happened the day that —when did you send your -- <br />JOSEPH: - -Ms. Gentry— <br />GENTRY: - -copy to Mr. Hunter? <br />JOSEPH: - -Did you see my petition on the blog? <br />GENTRY: I asked you a question. When did you send Hunter Bishop a copy of your <br />petition? <br />CHAIR: I think it's 9122, if I'm correct. <br />GENTRY.- And technically, when did we receive the petition for review? <br />L UM: Two weeks ago. <br />CHAIR: Well, it's dated 9122. <br />LUM: No, but when we —when I personally received it? <br />18 <br />