2010-10-13 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

The Chair reported that Mr. Onishi had contacted him, requesting a meeting. He was not sure what Mr. Onishi wanted to discuss with him, but perhaps it was what the newer Board members thought of the proposals. Mr. Henricks said he read the mayor's proposals and the Board's prior response; and although he was not serving at that time, he agreed with the Board's decision that the mayor's restrictions were too stringent. He had come up with his own proposal, which was to have a potentially questionable contract with the county submitted for review to a third party, which could be the Ethics Board. The third party would review the content of the contract and surrounding circumstances and make a recommendation. If the third party found any impropriety in the contract, they would report back to the mayor and council as to that impropriety. This would take away the stringency of the mayor's original proposals and provide a way to make sure contracts are proper. The Chair said the Board had discussed some time ago the option of having potentially questionable contracts reviewed by them. Ms. Schoen said that the Board's April 7, 2010, letter to the council included a draft ordinance amending the Ethics Code, and the language provided an option to have the county agency, officer, or employee obtain the approval of the Ethics Board to enter into a contract. The Chair asked Ms. Schoen whether it would be in the Board's juri sdiction, rules, and purpose to review potentially questionable contracts, and Ms. Schoen said yes. County Clerk Kenneth Goodenow was present, so Ms. Schoen asked him about the status of Bill 230. Mr. Goodenow said the bill was postponed at the last council meeting to October 20, 2010, for the purpose of getting the Board's input. If they were unable to provide input by then, it was possible the council would postpone the bill again, although that was speculation. His recollection of the discussion was that since the Board now was full, Mr. Onishi wanted to re -seek their advice, to see if anything had changed. Mr. Heaukulani said he wanted to express his philosophy. Hawaii has a reputation for being anti - business and over - regulated. In his opinion, the mayor's proposals were a speed bump for the free flow of free enterprise. In Hilo, everyone is only two degrees removed from everybody else. He does not want to see food taken out of the mouths of locals and given to outsiders. The Chair said that what the mayor is trying to do is good, and there are areas of the Ethics Code that should be looked at and improved. However, the Board had previously decided the proposals were over - reaching and would open the door for unintended consequences. He asked the newer members to submit their comments and ideas in writing for review at the next meeting. Ms. Lum asked for clarification on whether the Board wanted to submit anything to the council for its October meeting regarding Bill 230, and the Chair said no. 5