COM 0758.007 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Yoshimoto, J CO M M 75(3 P/COUNCTL From: Debbie Hecht [hecht.deb @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:53 AM r-� To: Ford, Brenda; DKailiwaiRay(Debralee); enaeole; Roxanne Hampton (RJ) Enr f dikeda; J S Yoshimoto; Dominc Yagong; Igahi; donishi; Greenwell, Ke }1y; -Dave) iirt; Pete Hoffman :r Subject: Bill 230- Code of Ethics- proposed changes October 17, 2010 z RE: Bill 230- Changes to Code of Ethics I have several suggestions as to language of Bill 230: 1. The term "immediate family" as defined at the end of Section 2 -84 -c would be better placed in Section 2 -82. The definition should then be deleted from Section 2 -84 -c. 2. Section 2 -83 -c should include "immediate family" as part of the named entities that shall not contract for goods or services. 3. Section 2 -84c- is very confusing and should be re- written to be more clear. Just because it's part of the County of Honolulu's code doesn't mean that it's legal. See below for proposed substitution language *. 4. Section 2 -85 Contracts: Why was (a) deleted? I would reinstate (a) and expand the notice requirements in (3), so that (3) would read: The agency posts a notice of its intent to award the contract and files a copy of the notice with the county Board of Ethics and the County Council 10 days before their next meetings. The Board of Ethics and the County Council must approve the contract before being awarded. 5. In rewriting this section, I wondered does the county of Hawaii have a Whistleblower Policy to protect employees who risk their jobs by pointing out illegal contracts or misuse of county funds or assets? If not, I would suggest that the Board of Ethics review suitable policies to be included in the Code. Mahalo- Debbie Hecht 989 -3222 hecht.deb @gmail.com *Proposed substitution language: For purposes of discussion, I broke the proposed language for Section 2 -84 Conflicts of Interests (c) into 6 separate clauses, Bill 230 proposed language is in italics, my comments are in CAPS, and the proposed substitution language is noted. The entire proposed substitution paragraph is at the end of this writing. 1. LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY BILL 230: No officer or employees shall represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the interests of the County or appear in behalf of private interests before any agency as except as otherwise provided by law: I BELIEVE THIS MEANS THAT NO COUNTY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER CAN APPEAR BEFORE ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION OR BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE COUNTY. AS OF THE END OF 2008, THE COUNTY EMPLOYED 2,705 PEOPLE (FROM THE HAWAII COUNTY DATA BOOK, TABLE 11.16 HAWAII COUNTY'S TOP EMPLOYERS: 2008). THIS MEANS THAT 2,705 PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE A VOICE IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT. IS THIS A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OF THE US CONSTITUTION? Comm. No. ! o • 7 Ref. To: ( GpLU't CiI 1 Ref. Date OCT 2 0 nag