2014-01-08 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

MS. CRAWFORD: Just clarification, and because we’re discussing personnel matters I want to be very careful what I say, unfortunately. Down the line I would be happy to share additional information with you after personnel matters have been fully settled. When something is brought to our attention through the supervisor’s review or for whatever reason, if we find an employee is perhaps engaging in inappropriate behavior, that—I mean that naturally is something that we investigate. Not necessarily ethics related at all. And an investigation could be much broader than an ethics—anything that might fall under the Ethics Code, and any investigation that we might enter into. I apologize if it appeared that we were doing ethics investigations on the basis of language that might have been used in a letter that you read. But the truth is, an investigation into—if there were to be an employee stealing money and we became aware of that potential, we would initiate an investigation to try and determine that. And the same is true for a number of other kinds of things some employee might engage in, and they might or might not fall under the Ethics Code. But I just—we would initiate an investigation in that case. MR. HENRICKS: I think what Mr. Adams is getting to is that when you make a final determination and when you put it in writing, it’s that he rather that you state that the employee is in violation of a department policy and not in violation of the Ethics Code, you see. Because when you say they’re in violation of the Ethics Code, you have made a finding that he says it’s his right to make. MS. CRAWFORD: And I absolutely agree and understand, and from six months ago now am aware the use of the language was totally inappropriate and would not—I mean, we never meant to be stepping on the Board’s toes or engaging in any processes that certainly are under the Board’s purview. And I think that the terminology used implied that, and I apologize for that to all of you. And I appreciate you bringing me in to give me the opportunity to say that, because we were not present at your September meeting, because we understood that it was a simple request of the employee to discuss whether or not his real estate activities—the Board felt that was a conflict with his work. And I felt that was his personal business to ask and was not here, and I think then--I wish that I had been here to have discussion then. But I apologize for that. MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Adams accepts your apology. MS. CRAWFORD: Thank you. Thank you all. MR. HISASHIMA: Can I make a comment, maybe it could help you? I read your policy on the—conflict of interest policy. MS. CRAWFORD: Yes. MR. HISASHIMA: It’s enforceable. You can do investigation on it. However, I would tighten it up a little bit more. On the violation part, you have a broad statement about punishment. You can follow what contracts is—30 days, whatever days. That’d be 31