2014-01-08 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

MS. CRAWFORD: --that it is virtually— MR. HENRICKS: --So does the dilution take it out of the area of directly affecting? MS. CRAWFORD: That’s what I think. But that’s—I mean, obviously that’s what you all are discussing. MR. HENRICKS: See, I don’t know. I’m asking the question because I don’t know. I’m trying to make a distinction. MS. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: And that’s one of the reasons I continued it to this day and not make a decision last week [sic], because I didn’t really feel comfortable with it yet. MS. CRAWFORD: We’re trying to share the information to help you see that, but yes, that is our—that both by the size of the neighborhood, the process, the relative portion of the process that this recommendation constitutes—all of that dilutes it to the—we do not consider it direct. MR. HENRICKS: What I’m trying to do is make a legal evaluation of this thing by saying okay, we know it’s affecting. You can’t say it’s not affecting. It is affecting. MS. CRAWFORD: Potentially. MR. HENRICKS: Yes. Okay, so it is affecting her property, right. But is it directly or indirectly? You see, that’s the distinction we have to make at this point. If it’s directly, then it’s a violation of the Ethics Code. If it’s indirectly, then it isn’t a violation of the Ethics Code. So that’s where we’re hung up right now. MS. CRAWFORD: Okay. I understand what you’re considering. And you understand—I did answer your question, right, is that correct? MR. BALSIS: Mr. Adams, do you have any more questions? MR. ADAMS: No. MR. BALSIS: At this time I’d like to ask if Mr. Drutar has any comments. MR. DRUTAR: I would like to make some comments. MR. BALSIS: Yes, please. And counsel, if I’m not following the procedure correctly, please let me know. 12