Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bautista: That's interesting. I had helped someone several years back that's <br /> the one that moved to Florida and everything is all done. Four <br /> years later he moves to Florida and he made that referral to his <br /> friend in Florida to call me. I said no I don't want to represent <br /> him, but how does that play out. <br /> Mr. Henricks: You do understand when I'm talking about when I make that <br /> motion. I'm talking about then nexus of the client. Remove the <br /> four years I think the nexus would be broken at that point you <br /> understand. Anybody with common sense would see that it was <br /> broken, but I'm saying you know what I'm talking about when I <br /> say don't go into your client base or their families and use them as <br /> your future clients on your business. If you do that then you might <br /> be in danger of violating the Code at that point. That's the jest of <br /> my motion. <br /> Mr. Adams: If I could again 2-84(a)(2) doesn't address your private work, it <br /> addresses your official public work. Right. The key here is as I <br /> think the judge is laying out in terms of the nexus. The key though <br /> is that we're not really looking at your attorney work right. We're <br /> looking to make sure that your attorney work does not affect in a <br /> manner that would establish conflict of interest according to 2-84 <br /> any official action that you might take. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: To further on the discussion, I think Board members should also <br /> look at 2-84(b) and(d)just to make sure there is no other questions <br /> related to. <br /> Mr. Balsis: Before we get into that it has been moved and seconded. There is <br /> a motion that has been seconded rather than trying to repeat it. <br /> Ms. Lawrence: Mr. Henricks made a motion to find that she would not in violation <br /> of Code of Ethics if the clients were not from or connected to her <br /> employment with the County of Hawai`i. <br /> Mr. Balsis: I think it was more of a possible, possible rather than not in <br /> violation. Possible not in violation. We cannot predict actually a <br /> future action of the Board. <br /> Mr. Adams: Would not be, but again that doesn't mean that there would not be <br /> a situation where someone could decide that they want to bring a <br /> potential Ethics violation forward. But it turns out it's in some <br /> other area obviously we could hear that and it would not have been <br /> something that we considered because it fell outside the <br /> boundaries. <br />