2013-01-09 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

the entire case. There's not one instance that I can find that even begins to say this ruling should also apply to county boards of ethics. Now our Board of Ethics our Code of Ethics and the rules specifically include post-employment jurisdiction by this body. Specifically. So the presumption is you have it. It doesn't say only in these particular cases does this body have jurisdiction post- employment. So the other thing is that Chief Justice Richardson and Associate Justice Levinson wrote a dissenting opinion. They said the majority's opinion led straight to absurdity. And rather than me pointing out what those absurdities were, they brought up certain issues of like a guy can do good all his career, and then the last month he can pass legislation that he knows will benefit him in the private sector and get off scott free, if you read this the way the majority opinion decided. They also cited the very same case law that the majority opinion did, the dissenting chief justice and justice by the way, Justice Richardson. This is what the Richardson School of Law, UH Manoa is named after? I'll hang my hat on his language, in many cases that I've read, particularly this one. I'll take his advice on this thing. So what looked like kind of a snap I don't mean to insult you by saying a snap decision I would encourage all of you to carefully read this and I hate to say this, but honestly, in this context, how that came up, and how this case law was cited and that it was not presented by your counsel here, the corp counsel representing this body, that there was some dissent, and the nature of that language in the dissent. That was it's unethical not to bring thatforward to you folks while you're making your decision on jurisdiction. So I'll end my testimony there, but I think these general matters are of great concern to the public, and I'm going to be communicating with the council. I see problems in this body not any of you folks personally, but in this body. And I apologize, Ms. Schoen. We haven't really had an opportunity, after I read this case, to speakprivately on this. Well thank you, all of you. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum Opinion dated 12/27/12 from the Office of Information Practices regarding Sunshine Law and Uniform Information Practices Act Complaints (from Dan Cole) about Agendas and Meetings. The opinion was in response to complaints by Mr. Cole in 2009. Mr. Balsis read aloud the summary of the opinion from page 2: "The June and July agendas provided sufficient public notice. The evidence was insufficient to find that the Board discussed the requester's petitions and made decisions in advance of the June meeting. Although notice of the June meeting was not timely mailed to requester, there was no harm as he received actual notice before the meeting and participated at the meeting. The Board did not violate the UIPA by not immediately providing a letter requested during an open meeting." There was no fault found on the part of the Board. He asked that the communication be filed.