My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-03-11 Board of Ethics Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2006-2010
>
2009-03-11 Board of Ethics Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/30/2011 2:09:05 PM
Creation date
6/30/2011 1:57:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GENTRY.- - -He has to provide specific information about —we don't know why she said <br />what she said. <br />LUM: Or, do we want to know? <br />GENTRY: Or do we want —well- <br />NICHOLSON: Yeah, I kind of hate to open the door to soliciting additional information <br />which will be as irrelevant as what we've gotten now. So if we're going to make a <br />motion, I think we would have to be really explicit about exactly what we need to see, <br />because the last time we asked for. information, this— <br />GENTRY: - -This is what we got <br />NICHOLSON: - -and I think we could just continue to get this kind of stuff for quite some <br />time. <br />GENTRY- Well, we could ask him in the letter to be very specific about —not her role as <br />an elected official, but about the specific incident. I think in that letter, there's a little bit <br />in here. He just found it offensive and he stated why, a little bit. But there must be some <br />underlying circumstances. <br />LUM: But is this something that we really want —is it really ours? Is this an action that <br />he really'wants to take against her? Is it really an ethical thing or is it some sort of a <br />slur, that he really wants a legal action against her? <br />GENTRY. He has to decide that, and he needs to put it in the form of a petition. <br />LUM: We could just decline it, also. <br />NICHOLSON: Yes, but it could be an ethical violation. Because we weren't there, we <br />don 't know, we don't have any information. We didn't see a videotape, we didn't hear an <br />audiotape. We don't have anyone else saying anything about it, so —I don't think it is, <br />but it could be. But because we weren't there and we didn't witness it, so we don't know. <br />We simply don't know, and I — <br />GENTRY- Maybe in the outline or in the letter, we should say we reviewed it —now I just <br />lost my train of thought- <br />LUM: - -We reviewed the document and decline to act without specific information— <br />GENTRY: - -Yeah, to determine if it's really ethical or unethical. It's along the lines that <br />Marilyn was just talking about. <br />LUM: What the last one that we sent to him, though —I don't have that January 9'h letter <br />that John Dill signed. Do you have it? I probably have it somewhere here. <br />NICHOLSON: I have it. <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.