2010-07-14 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

CHAIR: -- whether or not there are actually L UM: - -There must be another side. I mean the county, different STEPHENS: - -Well, it's the Title Guaranty L UM: - -the County Council has determined that, so there's a couple of sides. But we are not legal we have been tasked actually by the council, by the mayor and the council, to interpret the behavior I've been trying to think about if some of this could fit into what we're doing, but until the way I'm personally looking at it, until there's a legal determination if these people are in the wrong I mean, all of your opinions are that all this is in the wrong. They're still opinions to us. STEPHENS: Okay, the fact remains is Title Guaranty has not given you the proper report, and that's the key issue LUM: --But they don't give it to us, they don't give it to us, the Board ofEthics. STEPHENS: Right, right. L UM.• We 're us is all, us is all of us, we 're all CHAIR: --Ms. Stephens, we do as a Board, when we are petitioned, we do go out of our way to try and find look at your point of view and find wherein the Code it would be a violation. Obviously, we know the Code better than you do. STEPHENS: Right. CHAIR: And you listed down several sections in the Code, and the closest of which we could find is that 2 -85.1, but it's still questionable whether or not it applies here. LUM: And in that interpretation, where it's a STEPHENS: --'Cause there are contracts UM -- interests of parties who may be damaged, that third party is referring back to if the contract is cancelled. That's my interpretation of this reading. So even that is I'm not even sure this fits in under that. I just think you're way, way past as Arne said, there is the overall whole ethics of the world, that greater ethics which you are talking about, and then our little tiny board here that is interpreting this 5, 6, 7, 8 pages of the Ethics Code. STEPHENS: Well, is it UM - -You can't, we can 't TAMASHIRO: What are you so afraid of? 19