2012-09-12 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

what was before the Planning Commission that day on May 3rd, one would say that there was a lot at stake for the community, the new district of District 5. The statements didn’t seem to have what I would consider to be a fair attitude. Quotes like “before we get into it”—as a citizen I find it very disturbing that an individual, especially the chair, would start off the entire meeting by saying “before we get into it,” as if “ladies and gentlemen, let’s get ready to rumble.” It was that day a very emotional day. I believe that it is there that a chair has a responsibility to put a cap on that emotion and to deal with the facts of the case, which were very carefully pointed out by the Planning Commission. I want to tell you, chair, that my feelings that day, being in the minority, that I would say honestly—and if you were to do the deep reading on the entire case, you would come away with the conclusion that I came up with, and I was videotaping--and also a citizen who resides in this district in which the conflict was occurring—from the moment that that meeting started, it was like “ladies and gentlemen, let’s start the engine. I have to be out of here by three o’clock, and I’ve already done as much as I can for the other district that I will soon be representing, so let’s get on with this.” Emotions. Unethical manipulation, begging the question and not finishing his sentence, which was “I checked with Corporation Counsel, and I do not need to recuse myself.” That’s very fine. But then he states with—he says “and no.” No what? Never finished his sentence. No conflict of interest? “Although I’m a friend, although I did sit here, although I been on the commission since 2009, I should be aware of these issues if I had _______.” So I’m going to move on as to how I feel. Appearance. We’re talking moral philosophy here. We’re not talking legalism or criminalism or anything like that. I want you to set the standard, raise the bar, because we got a lot of new people. Now I’m going to pass on to the Yagong, “it’s a silly distraction.” MR. DILL: Okay, so for the record—hold on, for the record, you’re now going to be providing testimony on Communication 4a? MS. HAMPTON: Yes. MR. DILL: Okay. MS. HAMPTON: Thank you. Because I got out of the car and raced in here, I’m hoping I’m making some sense. Our chairperson considers what he is coming here today and what we are considering a silly distraction from more important issues. Again, here’s the bar. Here’s where you ask people who are supposed to judge people’s conduct and behavior, and how it appears to us you are the bar. Here’s where the buck stops. To say that someone in the community bringing a charge forth is a silly distraction from more important things is again begging the question. It’s unethical political manipulation. That’s for you to decide. Now do I know what your job is? Oh yeah, you’re the people who volunteered to say “R.J., I’m going to protect you from the oppression of the majority. And I’m going to protect you from retribution that may come, the reprisals from speaking out about what you believe to be true and what you believe to be the course of this government as they conduct themselves, doing the public’s business.” So I object. And when I read that he considers this a silly distraction, I feel something is amiss, that they’re not understanding, when they took the training in ethics. Now who am I to speak like this? Why, I have a lot of experience. I was legislative aide for Emily Naeole, and if there is anybody who knows what your job is, I have seen you in action.