My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-05-14 Board of Ethics Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2014
>
2014-05-14 Board of Ethics Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2014 1:30:47 PM
Creation date
6/26/2014 1:30:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Henricks: Only problem I have with that is, it’s not a problem with what you’re saying, the <br /> problem is that they keep telling us they want us to facilitate this thing and as far <br /> as I’m concerned, we’ve passed it on for two months now, and their date was <br /> April 1 and we’re looking at June now. I don’t know if we’d have to have a <br /> hearing, or just go ahead and make an opinion, or what. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: You know judge, it’s due process in order to give the lawyer her day before the <br /> Board. <br /> <br />Ms. Schoen: Actually if I could Mr. Chair. The reason that this matter was styled as a <br /> “communication” is because we received the letter, even though it’s dated May 2, <br /> on May 5. According to your rules, once an officer or employee receives a copy <br /> of a request or a petition, then they have 20 days after receipt to respond in <br /> writing, and so I just styled it as a communication with the expectation that it <br /> would then be agendized as an initial review or an informal hearing and in the <br /> meantime we could give her the requisite time period in which to respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: To me, it just felt like we weren’t facilitating anything. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: As I look at this, I have to say, actually she was the one that initially said she was <br /> going to send it to us and didn’t. We could’ve handled it this month if she had <br /> actually sent us the letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: It’s really not a big issue so that’s why I’m not making a big issue out of this. It’s <br /> not a big issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: Second. Unless somebody already did. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: No. That’s a second to the motion that we have an informal hearing so that we <br /> can give an informal opinion at our next meeting that will be in June. Is there any <br /> further discussion on this motion? We’ve had some discussion. Hearing no <br /> further discussion, all those in favor of the motion to have an informal hearing in <br /> response to the correspondence say aye. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis, Mr. Adams, Mr. Henricks, Mr. Hisashima, Ms. Kahakalau (simultaneously): Aye. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Hearing no opposed, the motion is passed. So we’ll ask that the appropriate <br /> parties be notified. <br /> <br />Ms. Schoen: We will send out the letter to the Respondent and give them a time, date and <br /> place, to appear. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Excellent. <br /> <br />Ms. Schoen: And then agendize this as an informal hearing for next time. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.