Laserfiche WebLink
The allegations against Ms. Sako should be dismissed. If you're <br /> not going to dismiss the allegations against Ms. Sako then I <br /> pointed out that there this fundamental concept of administrative <br /> hearings were there is an investigation. General the administrative <br /> proceedings is deferred or dismissed without prejudice for the <br /> conclusion of the investigative law enforcement function. You <br /> don't want to do is everybody stepping on each other's toes. There <br /> is subpoena power this Board has but frankly a more <br /> comprehensive review is being undertaken by the Attorney <br /> General's office. For Ms. Sako, our fundamental point is that she <br /> came on board as the Finance Director sometime recently in the <br /> context of Mayor Kerioi's tenure. I think there's no dispute that <br /> the finance department has done its job in regards to recording all <br /> the monies that are spent, the records are there. She responded in <br /> way that she has to respond to freedom of information request. In <br /> the due course through the advice of the Corporation Counsel. So <br /> really is no merit in continuing Ms. Sako as a party to this case <br /> because the actions that are being complained about are not <br /> subscribed to Ms. Sako. She did her job as Finance Director. We <br /> urge a dismissal of the allegation against Ms. Sako. She's here, <br /> she's done her job and that's where we're coming from. <br /> Mr. Adams: If I might Madame Chair. Counsel, the Vice-Chair was asking <br /> about the deferral. Is there any light you can shed on this <br /> question? <br /> Mr. Murai: Specifically, what Commissioner Adams? <br /> Mr. Adams: If we're going to consider tabling this petition because there is an <br /> ongoing investigation at the State level, criminal investigation at <br /> the State level. Is there anything that prevents us that you're aware <br /> of from continuing on with this administrative ethical/ethics <br /> proceeding that in parallel with the criminal investigation? For <br /> example, there is a Supreme Court case, Garrity that talks about <br /> the need to make sure that whatever the narrow administrative <br /> hearing,that is proceeding does not. If there are any statements <br /> that are made in evidence as a part of that. If they're not part, if <br /> it's not conducted with due process in mind or the proper due <br /> process in mind. Those statements are not allowed in a criminal <br /> investigation. That becomes a concern for me that as we get into <br /> the potential investigation of this petition, that we may end up <br /> hearing statements that would also be of use or interest in the <br />