2010-01-13 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Proposals 1 and 2 went too far and would have an unintended effect on smaller contractors and special duty officers. Ms. Lum said they also agreed that Proposal 1 belonged under Contracts rather than Fair Treatment. Ms. Nicholson questioned where the certification form would be mentioned, and Ms. Lum they could state in their letter to the Mayor that they are recommending the use of the form in the contracts procedure as an additional safeguard to address his concerns. For Proposal 3, the Chair said he was concerned about not allowing officers /employees to represent private interests in any action before the County. He understood the intent but is concerned about the availability of qualified people to serve on boards and commissions. Ms. Nicholson said that a County employee should not be barred from speaking as a private individual on a matter that is totally unrelated to his job, which is how the proposal seemed to be worded. The Chair agreed and said that if something came up that could affect his well- being, community, or family, he would have to step down from the Board in order to testify. The proposal would force people to choose sides. The County's population is small, and issues overlap and affect people constantly in different ways. To place more walls and barriers could in the long run create more problems than it solves. Ms. Nicholson said they should share their concerns with the Mayor on this issue, although they did not have any suggestions here. It was more a concern about the whole issue. The Chair agreed their concerns should be in their response to the Mayor. The Board discussed Proposal 4, which dealt with tightening the definition of "agency." They did not have objections to it but questioned whether it was needed. They decided to have no comment on it. The final proposal was regarding supporting changes to state law to empower the Board to levy administrative fines, and the Board had already made it clear they were in support of that. It will be lobbied again at the legislature this year. The Chair said he would work with Ms. Schoen on drafting the response to the Mayor. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the Board's own proposals would be part of the response to the Mayor or would be addressed in another way. She felt they should be incorporated into the response. The Board discussed whether they wanted to change the time limit to file a petition. The current time limit is six years from the date of the alleged violation. Ms. Schoen pointed out that the time limit is the same as the State and City and County of Honolulu. Ms. Gentry said that some contracts are long term, which may be a reason why the deadline is so long. An issue 31