2010-07-14 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

Ethics, which is passed out to each employee and elected officer. What we're reviewing is a communication from Ms. Stephens regarding the sale of the Hamakua lands, okay, and whether or not it violates the handbook and the Code of Ethics. In her letter to us, we're trying to decide whether or not this petition falls under our jurisdiction. We ask in our petition's application that the petitioner spell out the sections of that Code that they feel are being violated. Ms. Stephens listed a few sections of this Code, the closest of which I could find is Section 2 -81 ah, 2 -85.1, which talks about the county entering into contracts and a third party being damaged by that entering into a contract. Okay, we can there's no denying that there's definitely issues clouding this whole Hamakua land deal, but we are we are tasked to enforce the Code alone. And that's what we're trying to do. We're not saying any party is right or wrong here, we're just trying to see ifMs. Stephens petition has merit under this Board's jurisdiction. That's all. STEPHENS: Mr. Dill, is it possible for me to comment? CHAIR: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Stephens. STEPHENS: One of the main reasons that we filed the petition is because we were actually told that we could have the mayor arrested. That certified copy that I passed around we were instructed by the police to get a certified copy, and that anybody in possession of this stolen property who sells it could actually be arrested. And the reason that we have not done so is because we wanted to bring forth the ethical and unethical issues surrounding this land sale, and that we're stating that if Title Guaranty is not going to give you the proper title report it is a contract of an independent source, that is true, but the money that is being paid and the contract between Resolution 216, the Department of Finance, the mayor, and the deputy director, there is an agreement within there concerning this Hamakua land sale. And because Title Guaranty has not been made to give a proper title report, that's why you're having a hard time to decide right now, is this actually stolen, because Title Guaranty has not put that in their report about the altered document, that two police officers, one sheriff, and Consumer Protection Agency, Criminal Investigative Branch, has said this is a criminal act. So we're asking that the mayor act ethically. So inside of the Ethics Code, there is harm to a third party. That is all the interest of Naukana. That is the native Hawaiian tenant. That is the third party being harmed. CHAIR: Okay, Ms. Stephens. Again, we cannot rule on criminal procedures and proceedings. You said you had some kind of communication from police officers and a sheriff, or something like that? STEPHENS: Yes, there were two police officers that we showed that altered document to before we had it certified. There was a miscellaneous police bulletin filed at the County Council meeting, in front of all County Council members. CHAIR: That was my next question. I thought that Title Guaranty had, and I think Corp Counsel, had provided a report to the County Council regarding the title search on this? STEPHENS: Yes, sir 15