Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Balsis: Counsel at this point and time if we're to make any opinion do we <br /> do this by motion? It's been a while since I've done this particular. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: Yes. If you want to issue, because she's asking for an informal <br /> advisory opinion right. So you would do it by motion assuming <br /> your discussion is over. <br /> Mr. Balsis: Any more questions, discussions and interrogations? <br /> Mr. Adams: Just to make sure. She is not yet operating as an attorney and so <br /> this is really I think under Rule 3 of our rules a declaratory ruling <br /> not necessarily an informal advisory opinion which is Rule 4. <br /> Mr. Balsis: Counsel? <br /> Mr. Adams: I only draw that out to make sure that we understand that she's not <br /> asking us to issue an informal advisory opinion on actions that <br /> she's already being taking. This is actually a declaratory ruling <br /> that says her moving forward is not going given the situation as she <br /> has laid it out is not going to be in violation of the Ethics Code. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: You bring up an interesting question because this is actions right <br /> that she hasn't taken yet. She's trying to do it prospectively to try <br /> and avoid the issue. I think you know the member Henricks <br /> mentioned is kind of interesting because of I don't know that we <br /> can, that the Board can render an opinion prospectively without <br /> knowing everything that will transpire. The scenario that member <br /> Henricks brought up bare some discussion, I don't know. What do <br /> members think about further discussion? <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: We've had other instances in the past who, where people wanted to <br /> be proactive and come and seek our advice prior to engaging in <br /> whether it was an election issue. In this case now an employment <br /> issue. The Board has definitely looked at those kinds of proactive <br /> issues in the past. <br /> Mr. Henricks: Alright. I'm going to motion at this time. I move that the Board <br /> finds that Ms. Bautista is not violating the Ethics Codes if she does <br /> not get her clientele from her employment or from referrals from <br /> her employment. That means family members of who that have <br /> come in. There cannot be any way connected with your <br /> employment. The clients cannot be connected with your <br /> employing with the County. You understand that. If that occurs, <br /> we can see no violation or possible violations so moved <br /> accordingly. <br /> Mr. Adams: Second. <br />