Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Balsis: Is there discussion? <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: I would amend that neither of those precludes the other from also doing an <br />Ethics Code investigation. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: But I would amend it even further as I go along with my colleague here, <br />and says the decision has been made, I don’t think we can come in on it because we are not an <br />appealing body. They have their own appealing body for this type of thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: And so from a discussion perspective I would respectfully disagree. I <br />think the employee always has the authority, not the authority, always has the right to come to <br />this body to address what they may feel is a misinterpretation by the Executive Department. <br />Now, if that is, I think what we heard today from the Environmental Management Director was, <br />if there is a, if the sole basis for any disciplinary action being taken by the Department is an <br />Ethics Code violation, and then that is brought to us by the employee because, it’s never going to <br />be brought to us by the Department, but if it’s brought to us by the employee our interpretation is <br />going to, we will then end up like we are here. But we still have the authority to make the <br />interpretation, to hear that. If that is, if there are a variety of things, if there are variety of issues <br />and the Code of Ethics violation is only of which, is only one, then sure, we can hear that, but <br />that doesn’t necessarily, that’s not going to change necessarily any disciplinary action that’s been <br />taken just because we said, hey you were wrong on this. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: Only problem with that is when the employee brings it before us, it is not <br />in the form of a complaint because they cannot complain against themselves. So what they bring <br />before us is in the form of an advisory opinion, we cannot make an advisory opinion on <br />something that’s already happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: Just so we understand advisory opinion based on the Code is not the same <br />thing as an advisory opinion that you know, that you’re going to not make as a judge because <br />you can’t, right. Advisory opinion it has to do with procedure, it doesn’t have to do with <br />opinion. The opinion is still good. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Ku. <br /> <br />Ms. Kahakalau: I’m a little bit unclear in terms of how this item is agendized. And what <br />I’m reading is that the question is whether the Department of Finance may find a violation of the <br />Code of Ethics and sanction on the basis of that finding. And I think what we’ve heard both this <br />morning and now, is that the Department clearly has that right to make that call and find the <br />violation of the Code of Ethics and sanction on the basis of that finding. And I would feel more <br />comfortable to vote on that and say that that’s the part, that’s the question that was put to us and <br />that’s the answer that we would give based on what we heard this morning is this Department of <br />Finance was within their right to look at the Code of Ethics, find the violation, and sanction <br />based on that. If a person wants to come and ask us for our opinion as well, that’s perfectly fine, <br />but I don’t know that that’s the issue the way it’s agendized here so I’m just a little unclear if I <br />could get some kind of clarification that would be great. <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />