Laserfiche WebLink
Merit Appeals Board <br />December 16, 2020 <br />MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, this is Chillingworth speaking. I have no questions <br />for the Appellant. <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. <br />MS. HUGHES: May we now move to executive session? <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, we still have there's still the Appellant has presented his case. <br />MS. HUGHES: Yeah— <br />MR. MUKAL Well, Madam Chair, then if the Appellant has in fact concluded his case, I would <br />move for a directive verdict based on the evidence submitted and the failure to connect any <br />evidence of credible—any credible evidence to any wrongdoing or any violation of either the <br />Hawaii Administrative Rules or the Hawaii Revised Statutes. There's been no evidence. <br />So, I would move at this time for a directive verdict on behalf of the Hawaii County Police <br />Department. <br />APPELLANT SHOOK: May I make a statement, if possible? <br />MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, before entertaining that motion, I think you need to find out <br />whether or not the Appellant has finished with their case. <br />REP. SHOOK: We have not. <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: Have all witnesses testified? <br />REP. SHOOK: No. <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: Will you also be having us entertain your witnesses? Question to the <br />County? <br />MR. MUKAL If my motion for directive verdict <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: It fails. <br />MR. MUKAL fails, I am prepared to put on a case, however, I don't think based on what <br />was presented today, there's any need to move forward. There's been no—other than these wild <br />claims, there's no nexus to any violation of any civil service law or the Hawaii Revised Statutes. <br />So, that leaves <br />CHR. NAMAHOE: And that is the question that I've asked. <br />Page 30 <br />