Bill 160... adding "truthful" to the ethics code?

[Rob Tucker]

Apparently it is not "normally" expected in our county government.

Having it in the ethics code make it an official point of complaint if you choose.

[EightFingers]

Which is sad as it should not be the norm.

As a suggestion then, remove the phrase “to the best of their abilities” from section 2-83 (4).

[LazyLehua]

Rob Tucker...I commend you for doing all of this work. I took a look at some Codes of Ethics here on the mainland in California and found it interesting that none of them have a clause that they must be “truthful” or “factual”. I too thought this would be the norm but found it not to be.

[Rob Tucker]

Mahalo,

But it is not just me. Council Member Ohara will be leading the charge at this time.

In an election year I am very interested to see who is opposed to telling the truth.

EightFingers wrote: "As a suggestion then, remove the phrase “to the best of their abilities” from section 2-83 (4)."

I agree. I spotted that too. I discussed it with our council office and pointed out that a qualifier like that is not applied anywhere else. For example it would be silly to have code that said, hypothetically, "employees should not accept bribes to the best of their ability".

[My 2 cents]

“to the best of their abilities”

So, if a person gets a psychiatric evaluation and is diagnosed as a compulsive liar, this law would not apply to them.

[robguz]

If O'hara was concerned about ethics she would have demanded that Eoff recuse herself from any vacation rental legislation at a minimum. Not one member of the council spoke out against Eoff lying to a voter about her conflict of interest in owning a vacation rental, nor her hiding at least $60,000 in income from it on required income disclosure forms. Eoff faces exactly zero consequences for any of this. When this went to the "ethics" board one of the members said that even if something is a clear conflict of interest, as long as it is disclosed before a bill is introduced, it's all just fine. In order words, there is no such thing as a conflict of interest!

[Rob Tucker]

Robguz, Please don't hijack the topic.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Rob,
I have a question about SECTION 5. Severability.
Could you provide an example of what is covered under that provision?

I don't work with legal language, but overall I would say your draft reads well, and covers the wide range of conditions within county government where truth and honesty should be applied as part of the job description.
Well done.

Idiots rule the world, but only when there is a fair vote. - Last Aphorisms

[Rob Tucker]

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that a severability clause is rather standard. If I can paraphrase it I would say it means that in the event of a legal challenge, if a court finds a part unconstitutional that only applies to that part. The rest remains in effect.

[Chunkster]

While robguz did go off on a bit of a tangent, I think is was appropriate for him to point out that Eoff lied both when she told a citizen she had no vacation rental and when she failed to mention some significant income from it on her financial disclosure. (I was raised to believe that such an omission is the same as lying.) Yet somehow our "Ethics Commission" found nothing wrong with that. Eoff's failure to tell the truth is a prime example of how the proposed law should apply to both politicians and civil servants.