2009-03-11 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

LUM: - -It was sort of combined, the motion and the letter. So what we need is a motion —a clear motion that the Board declines to act on this matter. GENTRY- So moved. There. LUM: Now I need a second. NICHOLSON Second. L UM: Okay, and in favor? GENTRY, NICHOLSON, and MARTIN (simultaneously): Aye. LUM: Aye —the Chair votes aye. Now we can decide what should go in the letter, in the response, which would be that we are not acting. So that, Mary, is probably what was contained in the motions. SCHOEN So Madame Chair, might I suggest that just incorporating what you all have discussed you might want to say that the Board has reviewed the document Mr. Cole has submitted in response to our January 9th letter. Unless and until he provides pertinent facts that support the allegation that Councilmember Emily Naeole violated Hawai `i County Code Section 2- 83(a)(3), the Board will take no further action. LUM: Very nicely put. NICHOLSON.- Is it beyond pertinent facts, is it also supporting facts, too? I mean, he can just say over and over and over again the same thing. But – LUM.- Pertinent and supporting? NICHOLSON.- Or collaborating? SCHOEN: Basically, he didn't respond to your —this Board's January 9th letter, and so that's basically what we want to say. You didn't respond, and therefore the Board's not going to take any action. NICHOLSON Right, without really inviting him to make another response, or he may do that. GENTRY- There's also something inhere that I think I read —I wish I had underlined it. But he also said that, referring to —he represents something- something for other people - something, because her capacity is something —see how I read. But what I was getting was that he was trying to say that he was acting on behalf of everyone else in the district. That's my interpretation of'what he said, and that is like, not cool. NICHOLSON: Well, I don't think we can – 7