My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
08-12-20 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
08-12-20 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/18/2020 2:47:13 PM
Creation date
9/17/2020 11:11:21 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
issue. And also. And he agreed to and he has a proposal and all <br />sorts of things and had been... And also the County Prosecuting <br />Attorney Mitch Roth, the cases were in his jurisdiction and so we <br />have both the State and the County. And so we're concerned about <br />the County part and that's why we had questions and inquiries. So <br />I think that is appropriate but it's both jurisdictions and that's why <br />I asked if you'd also made a request with the State Board of Ethics. <br />Ms. Malakaua: Mmm hmm. <br />Mr. Heintz: We have... I think Thayne's concerns as well. Is we have the <br />Mayor's Office and the County Prosecutors Office and they are <br />under our jurisdiction. And they are involved and have been. <br />Ms. Malakaua: Correct. <br />Mr. Currie: And just also to clarify, I gave several examples of enforcement on <br />the same TMK map. I'm sorry TMK regions for the protest site <br />and then elsewhere. And one of those was a removable library. <br />And there had been other law enforcement actions there too. <br />ACPD was involved in some way with those actions. So there was <br />County involvements with law enforcement. Or they supposed to <br />be. And again, you know just to really reiterate and [inaudible]. <br />What I believe and what Ms. Malakaua and Mr. Nathaniel believe <br />are ethics violations in the State and County are case regardless of <br />who owns the road. Now if you were to include ... if we're going to <br />assume that the road is owned by the State and run by the <br />Department of Transportation. Then yeah. [Inaudible] blocking of <br />the road itself is an initial violation. <br />Ms. Nakanishi: The reason for my question is not so much the ownership cause <br />that's a bigger [inaudible] than we or as I understand it. But more <br />so, if we've assumed the duty that ... looks like the County has <br />assumed the duty to help enforce the laws on that road so. <br />Mr. Currie: Yeah. <br />Ms. Nakanishi: That was the reason for my question. <br />Mr. Currie: Yeah. Well not only road but also the specific plots of land. <br />Ms. Nakanishi: Yeah. <br />Mr. Currie: You know. And the reasons why action was taken against some <br />activities on the lands for [inaudible]. First is they do not have the <br />permission of the land owner. Which in most cases was DHHL. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.