My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0633.000 2012-2014
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2012-2014
>
COM 0633.000 2012-2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2014 9:59:40 AM
Creation date
1/27/2014 12:38:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2012-2014
Communication
0633
Point
000
Author
Brenda J. Ford, Council Member
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Filed - 02/05/14
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2014/02/05 2012-2014
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2012-2014\Council
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
This practice saves money in our very tight budget and no member of the public has ever <br /> been sent away or inconvenienced. This process works well. [Note: If the Ocean View site <br /> closes but other sites have members of the public viewing, those other sites stay open until <br /> the meeting is over or the public leaves. We handle Ocean View the same way.] <br /> However, when a council member provides written notice that the council member will <br /> attend from a location where the council is not scheduled to meet, apparently, per HRS 92, <br /> the meeting is considered to occur by video-conference and all video-conference locations <br /> shall stay open for the duration of the meeting (even if public testimony is over) and no <br /> member of the public stays to hear deliberations. <br /> If this is the correct interpretation, our council staff in the council member's office and our <br /> contract staff must stay for the duration of the meeting even if the meeting continues into the <br /> wee hours of the night and no member of the public stays. This is expensive, time- <br /> consuming, and in the case of staff shortage or staff illness, seems unreasonable. The <br /> purpose of the outlying sites or the alternate council chamber is to bring government to the <br /> people. If no one is there except the staff, there is no benefit to the public, but an increased <br /> expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It even seems unreasonable to leave open the alternate <br /> council chamber open when the council is not meeting there when no member of the public is <br /> there (based on the conditions mentioned above). <br /> Many council members want to provide more video-conferencing locations, but the overtime <br /> expense under this extreme interpretation would certainly cause us to re-think our position. <br /> Other counties might not be willing to video-conference from outlying locations under this <br /> extreme interpretation due to overtime expense. <br /> Please provide an opinion on HRS 92 when council members are at different locations and <br /> using video-conferencing. Is it required by HRS 92 to keep outlying offices open when no <br /> member of the public is at the outlying location? <br /> Mahalo for your time and assistance. <br /> Brenda Ford <br /> Council Member—District 6 <br /> Hawai`i County Council <br /> 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway <br /> Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 <br /> Ofc: 808-323-4277 <br /> Email: bford(c4co.hawaii.hi.us <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.