2008-12-10 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

LUM: - -it has to be understandable to us, because then it's not fair for us to try to act on something we don't understand. CHAIR: Well, that's why I think it's an argument to reject -- LUM: - -And maybe it's simplification— CHAIR: - -1 think that's an argument to reject it. That's one reason why the initial communication from Mr. Cole was sent back, asking for clarification. And his second, more detailed petition would seem to be also a little bit vague in terms of Code violations and who's violating the Code. I hesitate to have this Board act on something they don't understand. L UM: I – NICHOLSON: If I may say, the only thing I can see that's specific enough that we could possibly take an action on is on Communication 2008 -113, number 1, right here— L UM: - -But then where is that explained? NICHOLSON: Well, that's what I was looking for in the literature, is exactly where that statement was, because it just showed up in a newspaper article in West Hawai `i Today, so I'm not sure I even have enough to say, you know, did she really say that, what was the context of how it was said. But that's the only thing that I could get that was specific enough, and had enough detail, that- LUM: - -it comes under our purview. NICHOLSON: Yes. CHAIR: Yeah. That's the main concern I have, is that some of these accusations really don't fall under our jurisdiction. L UM: No. CHAIR: Well, let's stick to what we have to do here. We have to accept and file these two communications, 110 and 113, and then decide whether or not this warrants going forward and putting on our agenda for next month. LUM: So if we accept and file these particular communications, can we do that with, then, further ideas about action? CHAIR: Yeah. LUM: Okay. I move we accept and file the two communications. NICHOLSON: Second.