2009-09-23 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

against the Board of Ethics rules. And I do agree with Mayor Kenoi that it should come forth. It's along time past. Apparently, you know, I've heard some Council people and others say that the Board of Ethics is not really effective at all because they cannot levy fines and penalties against people that have broken the rules of ethics. So anyway, that's it, and mahalo. CHAIR: Thank you. And Jon Olson? OLSON: Yes, good morning. My name is Jon Olson, and I'm here to speak to 2009 -6 and 2009 -7. I was present during some of the incidents that were cited in this petition. As the chairman here has just pointed out, our process relies on civility to make it function. I have taken up directly with the Council chair the issue ofEmily's discourteous demeanor to people who come and testify. He has refused to deal with the issue, and therefore it's on your desk. There is a disc of all of this, so the issue is really not the question of whether she did it or not. What we 're down to is what are going to be the rules of engagement, and apparently it's fallen to you to make that decision. Is this the way we're going to conduct the government's business? I'm a child of the sixties, and I've dealt with government out of control, and I can do that and I will do that if that becomes the rules of engagement. If she can do it, I can do it, and many, many more of us will do it. I don't want to go there. Been there, done that. But if that's what it takes to get things back under control, we will. Thank you for your time. CHAIR: Thank you. And next we have Leana Gloor. GLOOR: My name is Leana Gloor. This is in correspondence this is regarding correspondence 2009 -66, letter from Mayor William Kenoi regarding proposed amendments to the Ethics Code. I am concerned about Proposal 1, relating to Section 2- 83, fair treatment. The stated purpose of the proposal is to prohibit County employees and companies in which County employees hold a controlling interest from contracting with the County. This seems reasonable and appropriate. However, the language of the amendment as it is presented in point Sc stipulates that, and this is quotes, no officer or employee, or any business in which an officer or employee or the officer or employee's spouse or dependent children has a controlling interest, shall contract for goods or services with any County agency. The way it is worded suggests that the intent is to prevent an employee from using a spouse or dependent children as a cover so as to enter into contracts with the County while essentially hiding their role as the contractor. However, the language as proposed would seem to prevent a spouse of a County employee, who may otherwise qualify on their own merit, from contracting with any County department simply due to their marital status. I do not know how many individuals this amendment might affect, but I would suggest that it could potentially unfairly diminish the pool of qualified contractors and vendors. This amendment would mean that a business owner that sells goods or offers services and is married to an employee of the County would be unable to provide such goods and services, regardless of the price or qualifications. It is easy to imagine many instances where an employee's role in the County has nothing to do with the selection of contractors or the goods and services to be provided by such contracts. This affects me personally, because I am a community planner currently performing a small contract with the County of Hawai `i 3