Code of ethics decision delayed again

WESTMINSTER City Council on Wednesday delayed a decision on a proposed code of ethics and conduct again, this time to the May 22 council meeting (OC Tribune photo).

By Jim Tortolano

A decision on a proposed code of ethics and conduct for elected and appointed officials was again delayed at Wednesday night’s meeting of the Westminster City Council.

After a contentious discussion that lasted for more than an hour, the council voted 4-1 – with Councilman Sergio Contreras opposed – to continue the matter to the May 22 council meeting. It was previously continued from the March 27 meeting.

At issue was a 12-page code of conduct created by community member David Johnson and Assistant City Attorney Christian Bettenhausen. It covered not only ethical conduct but also issues of courtesy toward the public and among officials.

Much of the conversation among council members was a back-and-forth between Contreras and Councilwoman Kimberly Ho.

She objected to the code of conduct on two grounds: that Johnson was an appointee of Councilman Tai Do to a city commission and would not be an objective source for the writing of the code, and that the document was too specific.

“This is a total conflict,” she said of Johnson’s new role and complained that the document was too long and detailed. “It needs to be broad. I would like to have a general statement.”

That began a testy exchange between Contreras and Ho.

“You’re not making any sense,” Contreras said.

“I don’t want a detailed statement that details every step a council person could take,” she replied.

“This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard from an elected official,” chimed in Do.

Contreras and Ho kept up their near-dialogue until a motion to approve the code of conduct was made and seconded. But that was overtaken by a substitute motion to delay consideration again to next month.

“I just want to make it clear why I voted against this,” said Contreras. “We’re just going around in circles,” he said, adding that “the community is judging us for this.”

6 replies »

  1. My work on that Code was completed prior to my appointment. It is shorter than the other five examples we used from other cities with the same scope of content. Every point in that Code came from those other cities, vetted by others first. It was not bias. Please, anyone may call me with questions. Each argument made by Council Member Kimberly Ho is false. David Johnson 714-337-3321

  2. This was a pathetic attempt to try and water down this code, by Ms. Ho who apparently doesn’t want ANY restrictions on her behavior.

  3. What do you expect? She campaigned in ads where she wore a white doctor’s coat under the name Dr. Kimberly Ho… Fully giving the impression that she is a MD to the Vietnamese community. Truth be told, her degree is in make-up or some other crap and it is not a PhD or terminal degree at all because tjose do not exist. For her, ethics and conduct are simply whatever she can get away with…

    • I agree the white coat with the name Dr. Kimberly is intentionally misleading to the community and clientele she sells her skin care products to.

      This is where we go back to “Is it Legal?” and “Is it Ethical”.

      She does hold a Doctorate (PhD) in Pharmacy but her license (RPH 41295) as a registered pharmacist is “inactive” status.

      She does hold an active Cosmetology license (16393) as an “Esthetician” to perform facials and other skin care treatments, but so does the lady who cuts my hair at Super Cuts.

      She really should not be putting herself out there to the public as if she is a physician when in actuality the title of Doctor is derived from having a PhD.

      It’s a gray area and Kimberly Ho exploits it for her own benefit.

Leave a Reply