Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT OF THE <br /> COMMITTEE ON PLANNING <br /> DATE: January 7, 2020 Re: Comm. No. 689 <br /> PLACE: Council Chambers <br /> Hilo, Hawaii <br /> TIME: 9:31 a.m. <br /> Council Chair and Members <br /> Hawaii County Council <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 96720 <br /> Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 689, reports as <br /> follows: <br /> Communication No. 689, dated November 20, 2019, and transmitted by Managing Director <br /> Roy Takemoto on behalf of Mayor Harry Kim, nominates Mark Van Pernis of Council <br /> District 8 to the Leeward Planning Commission. If confirmed, he would serve a term to end <br /> December 31, 2024. <br /> Mr. Van Pernis has been a resident of Hawaii for more than 43 years and has volunteered with <br /> numerous community organizations. He is a member of the Democratic Party. <br /> Rose Bautista, Executive Assistant to Mayor Harry Kim, introduced the nominee before the <br /> Planning Committee. Mr. Van Pernis expressed gratitude for the opportunity. <br /> Council Member Maile David outlined her past experience with the nominee and conveyed her <br /> support. <br /> Council Member Sue Lee Loy raised concerns in light of information she discovered regarding <br /> the nominee. Specifically, information regarding a past Office of Disciplinary Counsel complaint <br /> against the nominee, which outlined"patterns of recidivism of professional misconduct." When <br /> asked to provide insight into the current nominee vetting process, Ms. Bautista stated she was <br /> unaware of the complaint. <br /> Ms. Bautista explained the nominee had been vetted"as best as we can,"and that Mr. Van Pernis <br /> possessed the knowledge,passion, and skills to serve in the role, and that his past service on the <br /> Kailua Village Design Committee should outweigh negative concerns. <br /> Mr. Van Pernis was given an opportunity to address the complaint, which he explained had been <br /> resolved by the Hawaii Supreme Court years ago. <br /> Council Members briefly discussed procedural issues and concerns with the Administration's <br /> current vetting process, and whether or not it was adequate. <br /> PC Report No.:43 <br />