Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-16 Merit Appeals Board MinutesMerit Appeals Board Hilo Council Chambers Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street, First Floor, Room 1401 Hilo, Hawaii December 16, 2020 (Wednesday) Call to Order (Item 1) The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaii, was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chair Luahiwa Namahoe, at the Hilo Council Chambers, Hawaii County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, First Floor, Room 1401, Hilo, Hawaii, on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Roll Call — Present Ms. Luahiwa Namahoe, Chair Mr. William Chillingworth, Vice -Chair (via Zoom) Ms. Bella Hughes, Member (via Zoom) Mr. Mel Ventura, Member (via Zoom) Also Present Mr. J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel Ms. Malia Hall, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ofc. of the Corporation Counsel Mr. William V. Brilhante, Jr., Director, HR Department Mr. John Mukai, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel Mr. James E. Halvorson, Deputy Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General (via Zoom) Ms. Amanda Furman, Deputy Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General (via Zoom) Ms. Glynis Yamada, Secretary -Reporter, HR Department Note: As part of the response to the threat of COVID-19, Governor David Ige issued a Sixteenth Proclamation Related to the COVID-19 Emergency dated November 23, 2020, suspending Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92, Public Agency Meetings and Records, to the extent necessary to enable boards as defined in Section 92-2, to conduct meetings without any board members or members of the public physically present in the same location. This meeting will be held through a combination of some board members being physically present at the meeting location and some members participating by interactive video conference through ZOOM. Only persons that are present for the particular item on the agenda will be allowed in the meeting room. Each person will be required to wear a face mask and maintain six feet physical distance from any other person as required by law. Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: I'd like to call the Merit Appeals Board meeting to order. Addendum to the Agenda (Item 2) (Requires four votes and must comply with Hawaii Revised Statutes § 92-7(d).) CHR. NAMAHOE: First and foremost, do we have any addendum to the agenda? Before we do that—call to order, I'd like to call in the other Board members. Mr. Chillingworth? Please say if you are present—Mr. Chillingworth? Mr. Ventura? Ms. Hughes? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Hello? I was on at—five minutes ago. I just unmuted again, so let's see if that took care of it. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Chillingworth. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Yeah, can you hear me now? CHR. NAMAHOE: Can hear you well. Thank you, sir, can you hear me? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Thank you. I can, Madam Chair, thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Mr. Ventura, are you on the call? You're calling both Ms. Hughes and Mr. Ventura? MS. HUGHES: Can you hear me? Madam Chair, can you hear me? CHR. NAMAHOE: Can hear you. Ms. Hughes? MS. HUGHES: Yeah? Oh, yes, I did say "present"I guess you didn't hear me. I—but it just asked me to press "star six" to unmute. So, I think everything is (inaudible) now. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. Waiting for one more Board member to acknowledge, and then we'll move on to (inaudible). Is Mr. Ventura on the call? He will be shortly? Well, we'll wait for him to come in. Deputy Attorney General James Halvorson? MR. HALVORSON: Present. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Deputy Attorney General Amanda Furman? MS. FURMAN: Good morning, I'm present. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Mr. Mel Ventura? MR. VENTURA: I'm present. Page 2 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. Members, Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Deputy Attorney Generals Halvorson and Furman will be participating via Zoom. Thank you very much, both counsels are present. And introductions will be made as the proceedings progress. Statements from the Public (Item 3) (Testifiers will be required to wear a protective mask that covers their mouth and nose, physically distance themselves from others, and sanitize their hands prior to entering the meeting site.) (There were none.) Approval of Minutes (Item 4) Approval Of Minutes: September 30, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: First, we need to approve the minutes from September 30, 2020. Board members, if you'd please take that moment and then I'll entertain a motion to accept. If there is no discussion on the minutes from September 30, 2020, I'll entertain a motion to accept them into record. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, I move to accept the minutes. CHR. NAMAHOE: May I have a second? MS. HUGHES: Second. CHR.NAMAHOE: Okay. So, thank you, Judge—Mr. Chillingworth moved to accept them, seconded by Bella Hughes. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. The minutes have been approved. Communication(s) (Item 5) Communication No. 20-02, Received On October 23, 2020, Appealing An Employment Action (Filing A Notice Of Disciplinary Action Reprimand For Failure To Comply With Document And Information Requests Based On Discrimination, Harassment, And Retaliation Purposes) By The Hawaii County Public Works Department (Board Action Required: Setting A Hearing Date And Deadlines For Submittal Of Documents) CHR. NAMAHOE: Next up, we have Communication Number 20-02. Page 3 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 (At this time, Mr. John Mukai, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, came forward.) MR. MUKAL John Mukai, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on behalf of the Department of Public Works. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Oh, wait one second—we have a piece of information or we have an item on the agenda that will precede your—not yet. One second please. Okay, here we go. All right. We'd like to check with the Board members regarding your availability on February 10'', 2021, which is a Wednesday, to schedule Mr. Neil Azevedo's hearing. If you are available, we'd like to convene at ten a.m. The proposed hearing dateI'm going to read all of this now—and then I'd like to take a motion so that we can seal it all in the record. The proposed hearing date will be February 10'', 2021, on Wednesday. The proposed time at ten a.m. The location here at the Hilo Council Chambers, Hawaii County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Room 1401, Hilo, Hawaii. The proposed deadline for the parties are as follows: On January 11, 2021, which is a Monday, that's the deadline for parties to submit their documents, exhibits, witness list, motion, and memorandums by close of business day, 4:30 p.m. On January 25th, 2021, also a Monday, two weeks later, that will be the deadline for parties to respond—responsive pleadings, close of business, 4:30 p.m. All parties need to be informed that they will need to submit all documents to the Board secretary that's Glynis—via email, and regular mail or hand -delivered, and to the opposing parry. And the informed parties—you must inform that the MAB requires one original and eight copies for all submittals. If the hearing date and deadlines are agreed upon with the Board members, a motion, second, and vote needs to be taken. Please remember to announce—well, that—this is to me. So I need to take a motion right now that these times and dates are understood and agreed upon. I'll entertain that motion. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, moved Madam Chair. This is Chillingworth speaking. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. May I have a second? MR. VENTURA: Second. Page 4 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Ventura, second. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe — 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. Okay, so we've read it into the record. These are the deadlines for the appeal hearing to be that will take place on February 10th. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much for your patience to the item at -hand. 10:00 A.M. Hearing re Communication 20-01 Communication No. 20-01, Received On July 24, 2020, From Appellant, Appealing A Recruitment And Examination Action (Non -Selection From The Police Recruit Process) By The Hawaii County Police Department; And Communication No. 20-01.01, Received On October 28, 2020, From Appellant, Regarding A Summary Disposition Order And Expungement Certificate Concerning Operating Vehicle Under The Influence Of An Intoxicant; And Communication No. 20-01.02, Received On October 28, 2020, From Appellant, Regarding A Request For Information Through The County Of Hawaii Department Of Human Resources Concerning The Police Department, Police Commission, And Merit Appeals Board; And Communication No. 20-01.03, Received On October 30, 2020, Regarding County's (Appellee's) Witness And Exhibit List; Certificate Of Service; And Communication No. 20-01.04, Received On November 2, 2020, From Appellant, Regarding A Request Of Release Of Information Concerning The Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ) Administered By The Hawaii County Police Department; And Communication No. 20-01.05, Received On November 16, 2020, Regarding Appellant's Rebuttal/Witness And Explanation With Evidence Provided (Executive Session: The Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding The Above Matters, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(A)(2) And 92-5(A)(4), For The Purpose Evaluating An Officer Or Employee Of The County Of Hawaii, Where The Consideration Of Matters Affecting Privacy Will Be Involved And Consulting With The Board's Attorney On Questions And Issues Pertaining To The Board's Powers, Duties, Privileges, Immunities, And Liabilities. A 2/3 Vote Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting CHR. NAMAHOE: This hearing is on the appeal filed by Mr. Reed Shook. We need to know may I have it read into the record again, who is present. Starting with the Appellant. MR. SHOOK: Reed K. Shook. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Page 5 Merit Appeals Board MR. SHOOK: Robert K. ShookI'm Robert D. ShookI'm sorry. CHR. NAMAHOE: And you are? MR. ROBERT SHOOK: I'm his dad and his co-defendant in this process. CHR. NAMAHOE: As the Appellant, you're not a defendant? MR. ROBERT SHOOK: Co -counsel. CHR. NAMAHOE: You both share the same last name? MR. ROBERT SHOOK: Yes. December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: So, going forward, you'll be known as Appellant Shook and Representative Shook. REP. SHOOK: Perfect. MR. MUKAL Good morning, John Mukai, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on behalf of the Hawaii County Police Department. Initially, I would object to Communication Number 20-1.05. It's apparently filed as a rebuttal witness list, but there was never an initial witness list and exhibit list provided and nor was I given a copy of this by Appellant Shook. So, I would object on that basis. REP. SHOOK: We would like to state, we asked Glynis and everybody else we could, on how we should present this particular paperwork to put the witness list and everything else, and we went through everybody. And you can check with Glynis how many times I called and how many requests that were made. Nobody wants to help you. Nobody wants to provide any information at all. And Mr. Mukai, his statement, or his thing that he filed against us—says that it was mailed to us. We never received this in the mail. I had to come to Hilo to pick it up. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Representative. REP. SHOOK: Thank you. MR. MUKAL Well, Madam Chair, the certificate of service is clear. It was mailed to Mr. Shook and also if you would look at the Board's communication dated October 1, 2020, on page 2, it says, "also send it by regular mail to the Board's secretary, Ms. Glynis Yamada, and the opposing party." So, I don't know where Mr. Shook—Representative Shook comes up with this—"there's no one here to help me" when it's written on October 1, 2020. Page 6 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Appellant, do you have anything to say to this? APPELLANT SHOOK: As far as I'm aware, no paperwork was sent to my house upon request. I was with my—Representative Shook when we called out to request information from Glynis and Police Commission. As far as we could get a hold of, it was—we were put on hold or it just wouldn't pick up the phone. REP. SHOOK: For the record CHR. NAMAHOE: I'm going to read the communications into the record. I know Mr. Mukai mentioned one of them, but they need to be read in. Communication Number 20-01, received on July 24, 2024, from appellant, appealing a recruitment and examination action—non-selection for the police recruit process by the Hawaii County Police Department; and Communication Number 20-1.1, received on October 28, 2020, from appellant, regarding a summary disposition order and expungement certificate concerning operating vehicle and under the influence of an intoxicant; and Communication Number 20-1.2, received on October 28, 2020, from appellant, regarding a request for information through the County of Hawaii Department of Human Resources concerning the Police Department, Police Commission, and Merit Appeals Board; Communication 20-1.03, received on October 30, 2020, regarding County, which is the appellee's witness and exhibit list; certificate of service; and 20-1.04, received on November 2nd, 2020, from appellant, regarding a request of release information concerning the personal history questionnairePHQadministered by the Hawaii County Police Department; and 20-1.5, received on November 16, 2020, regarding appellant's rebuttal and explanation with evidence provided. This hearing is on the appeal filed by Mr. Reed Shook. The issue in this case has been identified as did the Employer, the Police Department of the County of Hawaii, violate any statutes, regulations, rules, or personnel policies when Appellant was not selected for a Police Officer I position during the Police Recruit process? If the answer to that question is "yes" then what remedy can be awarded by the Merit Appeals Board? So, are there any questions or disputes concerning the Board's jurisdiction over this matter? MR. MUKAL No, none from the Hawai i MS. HUGHES: None on my end. MR. MUKAL None from Hawaii County. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Halvorson? Page 7 Merit Appeals Board MR. HALVORSON: Yes? December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: So, as we are looking to determine our jurisdiction over this issue. Right now a dispute—is one of these pieces—one of these communications, which is the witness list that have been read into record. Again, what is being disputed is section—Communication Number 20-1.05. MR. HALVORSON: That's the Appellant's list? CHR. NAMAHOE: The rebuttal witness list, which according to the County, was a rebuttal witness list without the initial witness list. Did I say that correctly, Mr. Mukai? MR. MUKAL Correct and was never provided to our office. MR. HALVORSON: Mr. Mukai, are you claiming that you were prejudiced by that? MR. MUKAL A trial by ambush—we never had the initial witness and exhibit list, so we would object on that basis. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, this is Chillingworth here. May I suggest that we include the documents in the record in order to make it a record of the morning's proceedings and move on? CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. So, I'll take that as a motion right now and a second, please? MS. HUGHES: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Ms. Hughes. All in favor to enter this into the record? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: All right. I appreciate that. Good housekeeping. Thank you, Mr. Chillingworth. Right now, just the issue on the table is one of these communications—although we just read it all into the record. Did the parties have any statements or comments in regards to the issue of the case? REP. SHOOK: Yes. Yes, we do. In the process of this case, we might show that some laws have been violated and we need to know if this hearing has the authority to see if any violations of HRS's have been done—and civil rights and constitutional rights. Page 8 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL I don't think this is the proper arena for anything other than whether or not the Hawaii Police Department did anything improper when it deemed Mr. Shook, Appellant Shook, not be suitable to be a Police Officer Recruit I—and that's the only issue before this Board. REP. SHOOK: Madam Chair, in the process of showing that he was wrongly removed, wrongly treated by their own statements, we're going to show wrongdoing. MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, this is Deputy Attorney General Jim Halvorsona wide open inquiry into whether or not there's been some kind of violation of law is inappropriate and asked to be focused on whether or not it relates to the issue before the Board—and that is, whether or not the County Police Department wrongfully violated civil service laws when they disqualified the appli the Appellant from further proceeding in the recruit process. CHR. NAMAHOE: Looking at the Rules of the Merit Appeals Board right now, Chapter 104, section on the appeals to the Board—and within it, section 104-3, jurisdiction Section "(a) The Board shall not act on an appeal but shall defer to other authority if the action complained of constitutes a prohibited act that is subject to the jurisdiction of another appellate body or administrative agency or the grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement"; Section "(b) The Board shall not proceed on an appeal or shall hold proceedings in abeyance if there is any controversy regarding its authority to hear the appeal until the controversy is resolved by the Hawaii Labor Relations Board"; "(c) The Board shall not hear any appeal for which the requirements of Section 76-42, when applicable, have not been met." I'm going to ask that we go into executive session with our attorney general so that we can discuss this. May I take a motion for that? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, moved, Madam Chair, Chillingworth here. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, and second? MR. VENTURA: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please exit the room so that we can have that discussion. Oh, may I have a vote on that, please? I'm going to need a vote, ladies and gentlemen? All in favor that we're in executive session? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. We're in a short recess until we have a short privacy. Page 9 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 RECESS: The Chair called a recess at 10:34 a.m. to convene executive session. RECONVENE: The meeting reconvened in open session at 10:46 a.m. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. We are now resuming the hearing. Coming back to the issue at -hand. There are strict rule of evidence that will not apply in this hearing, however, the Board requests that all parties confine themselves to the matters connected to today's hearing and the issue before the Board. If there are—if witnesses are to be used, the opposite parties will be allowed to cross-examine the witness. Members of the Board may also question the witness after the witnesses testimony. So, if there are no questions, then we're going to begin. First and foremost—wait one second—sir, if you have an opening statement, we'd like to hear it from you now. APPELLANT SHOOK: Appellant Shook, not at this time, ma'am, but thank you. REP. SHOOK: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, it's his hearing. REP. SHOOK: I would like to give an opening statement. We're going to prove that throughout the process there has been some mistakes. His whole concern on this whole thing was where he could better himself, where did he go wrong, and how he could better himself in the process of asking that simple question, we're here today because the answer never came. The answers was "not acceptable" to anybody who was going through his situation. And the more we looked, the worst the questions became. That is our opening. We just called to ask how he could better himself to get a better test score, was it his test, was it his physical, was it this—to be told things that was just out of his reach. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. County's turn to make an opening statement. MR. MUKAL Thank you, Chair. Appellant Reed Shook applied to the Hawaii County Police Department to become Police Officer Recruit L During the process of gathering information about Mr. Shook, the Hawaii County Police Department found that there were issues regarding his suitability for becoming a police officer recruit. There were background checks that were done and certain red flags were found. We believe the evidence will show that the Hawaii County Police Department acted properly, did not single him out in any way. But Mr. Shook will claim that a prior DUI was the cause of his not being found suitable. He'll also claimed that an incident with Officer Van Reyes and another—and other multitude of reasons that he was not found to be qualified. Page 10 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 The evidence will show that this is simply not the case. The evidence will show that during the background checks Mr. Shook was determined to not be qualified and through the testimony of Officer Van Reyes, who is retired, Sergeant Jason Grouns, and Police Chief Paul Ferreira Hawai`i County Police Department acted properly in finding Mr. Shook not to be qualified to proceed as a police officer recruit. There simply was no harassment, intimidation, or any violation of Mr. Shook's civil rights as noted in his complaint. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Mukai. At this time, Mr. Shook—Appellant Shook, you're able to present your case. So, first and foremost, we're looking—do you have any witnesses that you are calling forward? REP. SHOOK: Yes, we're going to call Reed Shook up first. Appellant Shook up first. Before we proceed, Madam— CHR. NAMAHOE: First and foremost, we need you to yes, please? Are you the only witness for your case? REP. SHOOK: No. CHR. NAMAHOE: Are any of the witnesses in the room right now? REP. SHOOK: Yes. He's a witness—he has to leave. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Shook, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? APPELLANT SHOOK: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, you may proceed. REP. SHOOK: Before I proceed, can we ask for some type of clarification on Officer Dan (sic Reyes's retirement? As Mr. Mukai stated, the one person that's— CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Representative Shook. REP. SHOOK: Yes? CHR. NAMAHOE: It is time for you to examine your witness. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Okay, Reed, on October 22nd, 2019, you had gone to the Police Station, as required, because you had passed the written test, you had passed the physical test, and now you was going through what they called the PHQ. Okay. Upon getting there, explain what happened to you on that day? Page 11 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: During the PHQ exam we were—stood up, one at a time, by officers in order to get our fingerprints done for the background check to later to happen. At which point, Mr. Reyes pointed to me said, "Sir, come with me"—and took me to get my fingerprint done. I was to stand by the table while he got the equipment ready. During that time, another officer gestured to me and said, "Come here, I got it already set up"I went with the other officer to get my fingerprints done and then he told me to sit back down. At which point, Mr. Reyes came to the—came to my table in front of me and immediately put his hand in my face and said, "Don't you ever, ever do that again. I told you to stand there, you stand there. Do you understand me?" He was very vocal, he was very physically intimidating at the time. He was trying to take control of the room as how I read it—his body language. But I didn't understand what's going on at the time. I didn't know what I did wrong. He just continued to harass me at that, just saying, "Don't you ever do that again. I told you to stand there. You frickin' stand there. Do you understand? Do you understand?" At which point I just sat there and nodded, "Yes, sir. Yes, sir"I just waited for him to stop. At which point he stopped, walked away, and I was just in shock. Honestly. After that we were broken up into separate—how am I going to describe this—we were to be taken by individual officers to review our PHQ forms. They were to overlook it with us, tell us how we can improve, any red flags on the form, etcetera. Mr. Reyes who had just accosted me, immediately pointed me out when the sergeant in charge of the class told us to break up into our groups. Instead of waiting for him to assign an officer, Reyes immediately pointed to me and said, "You're with me." Now, all the other candidates were either in that room still or they were just outside the room on the picnic tables right outside the door. Mr. Reyes took me to the elevator, upstairs to his office. I did not understand. I felt very weird about it because nobody else was being taken that far away from the group. I was sat in his office. He didn't even look—didn't even turn the pages on my form and he immediately said, "Yeah, you should sign right here. Sign out." The sign out was, we had the eligibility to drop out on our own and I didn't understand why he was telling me to do this. He said, `Based on what I see, you're not getting in." He thenI then said, "I respectfully decline, I would like to proceed." He said, "I don't know how they do it in other counties, but here you fail once you're not getting in, period." And that struck me as very—sorry—struck me as very odd. I've taken the test on Kauai, Maui, Oahu—and nobody else has told me that ever. And I've never seen that on the recruiting board. I respectfully declined again. I was, like, I wish to proceed. He just nodded his head and said, "Well, from what I see, that doesn't make for a good officer. You should sign out. Your references and, specifically"—he said, "your references cannot help you." I did not understand that either. I simply declined again. At which point he said, "Okay. Sign, sign." Stood me up and instead of allowing me to walk through the door—he Page 12 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 walked me to the door and closed it behind me. I was not allowed to walk out on my own. He walked me to the door and closed it behind outside of the police station not just his office. At which point, I proceeded to go down back down the stairs from the public accessway because I parked in the grass where we were supposed to. And as I was walking past the picnic tables, I saw everybody else on the picnic tables with their officer or they were still inside the classroom. It looked as if I was the only person taken out away from the rest of the group. To me, it struck me as a red flag. That's what happened during the testing. Would you like me to proceed with what happened after or is that fine enough? REP. SHOOK: The next question would be—did you feel you were being singled out? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. REP. SHOOK: Did you ask or try to ask anyone there why this was happening? APPELLANT SHOOK: I did not feel it was my place to (inaudible). REP. SHOOK: Did anybody offer an explanation as to why? Did they say, "Well, because of your haircut? Because of your shoes? Because of your record? Because of your last name? Because of your race?" Did any of that come up? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. Officer Reyes simply said, "Based on what I see, you're not getting in." REP. SHOOK: What was Officer Reyes referring to when he said, "What he sees?" APPELLANT SHOOK: He would not expand on that. REP. SHOOK: Would it be safe to say that Officer Reyes was looking at that time at your records? APPELLANT SHOOK: It is possible. Yes. MR. MUKAL Object to the question. Calls for speculation. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Sustained. REP. SHOOK: I'll Page 13 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Representative Shook, so that you understand. I want to make sure that we're being clear here and I appreciate this questioning this line of questioning. If you take this into a protected class area, it moves right out of our jurisdiction. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So, Mr. Shook, were you disappointed upon being told or given this information that you would not be allowed to proceed? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. Immediately after the situation, I went straight to the Hilo HR, which is in the building across the street from us, to request clarification on statements by Mr. Reyes. REP. SHOOK: Mr. Reyes told you that you would not get into the department because if you failed the first time, you failed for life. Do you feel that this is a proper response? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: Did Mr. Reyes emphasize or explain in any way why he came to this conclusion? APPELLANT SHOOK: He simply said based on what I see here, you're not getting in. He also the only clarification he gave was—and I quote, "I don't know how they do it in other counties but, here, if you don't get in, you don't get in." REP. SHOOK: Was there any other statements that Officer Reyes might have said, like—does somebody else have to look at it to agree or somebody takes whatever he says, or he's looking at something and saying this is enough to keep you out, period. Do you feel that he had anything there that could keep you out? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: Did he allow you to see what he referred to? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: When Officer Reyes sent you out the door, you said you signed one piece of paper? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, there was a form for us both to sign to mark that he reviewed it with me—he sign, I sign. REP. SHOOK: Did Officer Reyes go through the PHQ process with you at any time? APPELLANT SHOOK: I believe me going to his office, that's what going through the PHQ was. Page 14 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: So, what you're saying is there was no review of the questions, there was no opportunity for you to provide any information that you might have came there with to clear out your record or anything else? There was nothing to do with your record? No conversation to do with your record or anything? APPELLANT SHOOK: He didn't point out any specifics on the PHQ. No. REP. SHOOK: So, it's safe to assume, you didn't really go through a PHQ because they said you had to put three hours aside. Did you spend three hours at that office? APPELLANT SHOOK: Inside his office, I believe I spent maybe 15 minutes. REP. SHOOK: Can you estimate the total time that you was there, `cause you said once you was outside you could see people breaking up and going through their records. So, how much time were you actually there before you was supposedly removed? MR MUKAL I'd object to the form of the question. I mean, I've been trying to hold back but the questions are leading the witness. CHR. NAMAHOE: Agree. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Sustained. So, Representative Shook, do you have—have you painted the picture or are you ready for the cross? REP. SHOOK: I get one more question CHR. NAMAHOE: Go ahead. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Did anyone else in that office speak to you about your being removed? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: Your witness. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. MUKAL Thank you. Mr. Shook, my name is John Mukai, represent the Hawaii County Police Department. I'd like you to take a look at Exhibit—County of Hawai`i's Exhibit 1 (SEE COMM. NO. 10-01.03). Do you have that before you? APPELLANT SHOOK: Got the page, sir. Page 15 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAI: Okay. Mr. Shook, you agree that being truthful is that would be an important quality for being a Hawaii County Police Officer Recruit. Do you agree with that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Honesty, liberty, integrity yes. MR. MUKAL Okay. Exhibit 1, on page 5 APPELLANT SHOOK: Wait, Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 9? MR. MUKAL One, on page 5. You were asked— APPELLANT SHOOK: Hold on, I was turned to page 9—Exhibit 9. Sorry, one second. Okay, I think I—yeah, Exhibit 1. MR. MUKAL Okay. On page 5 you were asked to provide personal references. Remember that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Page 5. Yes. MR. MUKAL Okay. So these people know you and can attest to your character and personal attributes. Is that fair? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL You would agree that character and personal attributes are important as a police officer recruit. You'd agree with that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Character and what? MR. MUKAI: Character and favorable personal attributes? APPELLANT SHOOK: No, not favorable personal attributes. MR. MUKAI: Well APPELLANT SHOOK: So, I believe that what makes a officer good is their integrity to the law, period. MR. MUKAL So character doesn't mean anything to you? APPELLANT SHOOK: A character attribute would be a similar to, I smile a lot versus I hold true to the law and I abide by it. MR. MUKAL I understand your answer. And you were also asked to provide professional references on page 6. Do you remember that? Page 16 Merit Appeals Board APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Again, you would agree that these people have observed you. Is that fair? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Okay. You would agree that following directions would be important to be a Police Officer Recruit I? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Is that fair? Okay. So, on page 2 of Exhibit 1, at the bottom of the page, you note the name of your immediate supervisor. You see that? It says, Juree. APPELLANT SHOOK: Page 2, Exhibit 1? MR. MUKAL Yes. APPELLANT SHOOK: Kamehameha Schools? MR. MUKAL Page 2 on Exhibit 1. APPELLANT SHOOK: Okay, first part, right? Part AI mean, Part B, right? MR. MUKAL At the bottom of the page— APPELLANT SHOOK: Bottom of the page— MR. MUKAI: You note the name of your immediate supervisor as Juree. You see that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Juree? I'm not seeing where he's saying that. MR. MUKAL At the bottom of the page, when you were working at Andrews International. APPELLANT SHOOK: Andrews International. MR. MUKAL See that name of immediate supervisor? APPELLANT SHOOK: SupervisorI'm not seeing the supervisor part on this thing. Junee? MR. MUKAL Oh, Junee? APPELLANT SHOOK: Junee. Page 17 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Oh, okay. Does this person have a last name? APPELLANT SHOOK: Not that I'm aware of. MR. MUKAL Okay. APPELLANT SHOOK: For Andrews International we worked via contract to the private property. Supervisors were rarely on site, if not, at all. And we had just gotten a new supervisor while I was still there. Her name was "Junee" that's the only MR. MUKAL Okay. APPELLANT SHOOK: name that was on her name tag. I only got to meet her once. I apologize, if I do not know her last name. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, same question on the following page where you simply put "Ellie" when you were at Ross. See that in the middle of the page? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. MR. MUKAL Does Ellie have a last name? Or did she just have name tags, like the other guy. APPELLANT SHOOK: I apologize on that one as well—that was in 2014. I do not recall her last name. She no longer works for Ross, so I couldn't look up a last name. MR. MUKAL Now, on page 5, your personal references, at the bottom of the page you write, "Carrie Soo Hoo." You see that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Is there a reason you did not include any mailing address? APPELLANT SHOOK: At the time, she was overseas. I believe at that time she was in what I believe it's called (inaudible) now, what was once known as Burma? She is a travelling teacher. MR.MUKAL So, you just decided—well, I don't have to put that in, she's in Burma, so APPELLANT SHOOK: She had no address. MR. MUKAL Page 6, you note no mailing address for "Ernie Saldua." Is there a reason for that? Was he in Burma? APPELLANT SHOOK: No, sir, he lives somewhere in the Keauhou area. I do not know his address. Page 18 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL And you never bothered to go look it up or even call him and ask? I'm just wondering APPELLANT SHOOK: Yeah. No, sir, he didn't pick up his phone. The man—I don't want to make any excuses for that. I'm just going to say that it was my bad on that one. MR. MUKAL Okay. Bottom of the page you wrote, "no mailing ad" you also put "Rudy" with no last name. Is there a reason you don't put Rudy's last name? APPELLANT SHOOK: I never asked for his last name at the time of working with him. MR. MUKAL Why, does—he just had a name tag that said "Rudy" or something? APPELLANT SHOOK: No, sir. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, on the last page the declaration it says, "I understand that misrepresentation or the purposeful omission of facts called for on this form is reason to disqualify me from further consideration and is grounds for termination if such items are a busines necessity." Did you read that before you signed it on October 2, 2019? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. MR. MUKAL Now, the Hawaii Police Department, at the end of the form, there's a "Waiver of Liability and Release Form"—it's two pages before Exhibit 2. APPELLANT SHOOK: Before Exhibit 2 -two pages? MR. MUKAL Yes. REP. SHOOK: Excuse me, this was signed in front of a notary, yes? MR. MUKAL I don't know. I wasn't there. I'm asking Mr. Shook whether or not he remembers signing REP. SHOOK: Just asking for clarification of the page. MR. MUKAL Remember signing this document? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL And it was before a notary on or about October 2nd, 2019? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Did you read this before you signed it? Page 19 Merit Appeals Board APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL So, you agree that you signed in order to permit the Hawaii Police Department make a thorough investigation of applicants background, family, personal habits, and reputation for the purpose of determining applicant's fitness and suitability for employment with the Department? You read that, correct? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL And you understood that, right? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL And you had that notarized? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Okay. You mentioned this incident with Officer Van Reyes. You remember that testimony? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Didn't you make that same complaint to the Hawai `i Police Commission? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. MR. MUKAL Is that a yes? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes. MR. MUKAL And what happened? APPELLANT SHOOK: At the Police Commission meeting? MR. MUKAI: Did they find in your favor? APPELLANT SHOOK: The Police Commission told me that they do not have the authority to weigh in on that matter. MR. MUKAL Take a look at Exhibit 7. APPELLANT SHOOK: Same section? Page 20 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL County's Exhibit 7—little further down. See that? Okay. You see on page 4 of the background inquiries? You see that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Got the page. MR. MUKAL Page 4, you see that? Who's "Oscar Passalacqua?" Who is that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Oscar? MR. MUKAL Yes. APPELLANT SHOOK: Oscar was a previous supervisor of mine at Andrews. MR. MUKAL Okay. And he says you had very poor people skills, kind of had a power trip mentality, that you're very confrontational. You agree with that assessment? APPELLANT SHOOK: No, sir. MR. MUKAL Okay. What about on the next page. Who is "Joseph Hing?" APPELLANT SHOOK: The next page, oh, Joseph JR Hing, yeah. Joseph JR Hing was a supervisor of mine on the Mauna Kea site PSG—Private Security Group. MR. MUKAL Okay. He knows that you're, kind of, weird. You agree with that assessment? APPELLANT SHOOK: Weird in the definition of different? Yes. MR. MUKAL So, he's unable to provide a positive recommendation for the position. So, you would not agree with that statement, right? You'd want to be a police recruit, correct? APPELLANT SHOOK: I would like to be a police officer, yes, sir. But I cannot speak to his comments. That is his and his alone. MR. MUKAI: Next page—who's "Mahealani Ching?" APPELLANT SHOOK: That's under character reference, Mahealani Ching is a former associate of mine from University of Hawaii at Hilo. MR. MUKAL In fact, you put her down as a personal reference, right? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL And she recommends you with hesitancy `cause you need to mature some. You disagree with that? Page 21 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: As stated previously, her comments are hers and hers alone. If that's how she feels then that's how she feels on me. MR. MUKAL And you would agree that being mature is important in being a police officer recruit for the Hawaii County Police Department? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, November 10 of this year, are you aware that your father called Sergeant Jason Grouns? APPELLANT SHOOK: Of this year, yes, sir. MR. MUKAL Yeah. And then, your father said—asked Sergeant Grouns how someone like you would not be selected because you're from Waianae where it's a, quote, and I apologize, "A war torn area and that the Big Island is"again, I apologize—"fucking child's play compared to there." Did your father tell Jason Grouns that? Do you know about that? APPELLANT SHOOK: Those comments, I did not hear during the conversation. REP. SHOOK: I'd like to object at this point. Hearsay and the employment by the other side and whatnot, if they have a recording of some kind, I'm going to point out throughout this thing that Sergeant Grouns has a habit of misleading things. So, hearsay at this point. MR. MUKAL I object to that characterization. This is cross-examination and I'm asking whether he's aware of this conversation with Representative Shook. CHR. NAMAHOE: I don't have any evidence of that in front of me. MR. MUKAI: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I'd like us to move on with the questioning. MR. MUKAI: Okay. Mr. Shook, I have nothing further. APPELLANT SHOOK: Was that for Appellant Shook or was that for dad Shook? Remember this is MR. MUKAL Appellant Shook. APPELLANT SHOOK: Okay. Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Do you have any cross that you would like to do? Re-examination. Page 22 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: Mr. Shook, have you since this has taken place, tried to settle this before coming to a hearing or any other place that you tried to understand and try to come up with a reasonable (inaudible) solution to this? MR. MUKAL Question relevance. REP. SHOOK: I re I'll re -question it. Have you made communications with other people to try and learn more about this? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. After the incident at the Police Station, I went directly to Hilo HR Department across the street and I spoke to the clerk there to clarify Mr. Reyes' comments on, "If you don't get in, you don't get in. You fail once, you're never getting in." And the clerk at the office said, he should have never said that. I have no idea what he's talking about. And then he made an off comment that Mr. Reyes has a record of MR. MUKAL I object, this is hearsay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I think my concern right now isas we're going forward with this, at some point in time, the Board members also would like the opportunity to address the witness. So, I want to take this moment right now. I appreciate the questioning from both sides. And I want to give the opportunity to the Board members if they would like to ask Appellant Shook any questions. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, this is Chillingworth, no questions from the—from me. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MS. HUGHES: And this is Bella Hughes, no questions for me. But I do look forward to discussing (inaudible) in executive session. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. VENTURA: And this is Mr. Ventura, I have no questions for Mr. Shook. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. I appreciate this. So, just to make sure that we stay on track here, you have exhibits that you present—you presented. You also have exhibits that you have presented that the County has presented. I'm going to ask you, make your case and be thorough. REP. SHOOK: I have only a few things I'd like to point out. It has a lot to do with the case because it's about credibility. CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, I want to make sure you also have an exhibit list Page 23 Merit Appeals Board REP. SHOOK: Yes. CHR. NAMAHOE: —and you haven't brought them? REP. SHOOK: Yes. CHR. NAMAHOE: And so, we need to REP. SHOOK: It's on Exhibit 3. CHR. NAMAHOE: All right. REP. SHOOK: And it's under Communications 20-01-03, and it's Number 3. December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: So, we're in Exhibit 3, there are four pages—would it be page 1, 2, 3, or 4? REP. SHOOK: It would fall under Personal History Questionnaire Review. MS. HUGHES: What page would that be? REP. SHOOK: It doesn't have a page number. CHR. NAMAHOE: Again, just— REP. ust REP. SHOOK: It's just before—it's the page just before Exhibit 3 -just before Exhibit 3. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, this is still Exhibit 2? REP. SHOOK: That would be exhI'm sorry, they were just stuck together. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, on page 5 of 5? Is that what you're saying? REP. SHOOK: Yes. That would be the last page, just before Exhibit 3. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, Chillingworth speaking. I can't hear the statements that are being made by Representative Shook and I'm going to ask him to get closer to the microphone, please. REP. SHOOK: I'm sorry. It's Exhibit 2, the exact last page. It's the Personal History Questionnaire Review. It's the bottom of the statement, the very bottom of the statement, just before the signature. Do you have it? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, I believe so. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Starts off, "In the summer of 2005"—do you have it? Page 24 Merit Appeals Board CHR. NAMAHOE: I do not. One second, please. Exhibit 2 MS. HUGHES: I'm sorry— REP. SHOOK: The last page. MS. HUGHES: the last pages of Exhibit 2? REP. SHOOK: Exact—the absolute last page. Just before 3, last page. MS. HUGHES: Okay, I found it. Yeah. Last page of Exhibit 2. CHR. NAMAHOE: Last page of Exhibit 2? MS. HUGHES: The last paragraph. REP. SHOOK: Yes. December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: From Mr.complaint number HPC2014is that what we're talking about? It's a letter? REP. SHOOK: No, it's a MS. HUGHES: The top of it is "Personal History Questionnaire Review." REP. SHOOK: Yeah. It would have that. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. For reference, thank you. In your orange tab, Communication Number 20-01.03, Exhibit 2, the page before Exhibit 3. Thank you. I was looking in the wrong area. Thank you. The Personal History Questionnaire Review. REP. SHOOK: Okay, Mr. Shook, please read the last paragraph that is stated there. APPELLANT SHOOK: "In the summer of 2005, in Hilo, Hawaii at the intersection of Kilauea Avenue and Mohouli Street, I was involved in a two -car accident. I rear ended a Toyota Camry that was stopped at the intersection. I expected the Camry to drive through the intersection, the Camry stopped and I was unable to stop in time." REP. SHOOK: Mr. Shook, you got into an accident. Please tell them what your age was on 2005? APPELLANT SHOOK: In 2005, at this time, I was I believe 14. REP. SHOOK: Was you in Hilo at that time? Page 25 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: I was living in Waianae, Oahu, at that time going to Waianae Intermediate. REP. SHOOK: Is this a false statement? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. REP. SHOOK: Did you sign this false statement? APPELLANT SHOOK: It says my signature, but I do not believe that that is my signature, sir. REP. SHOOK: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) APPELLANT SHOOK: That is possible. Yes. REP. SHOOK: I'm going to show you, Mr. Shook, your principal list certificate, which is from the principal list from the year/date of 2008 to 2009, in which you was in Waianae High School? Is this it? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. REP. SHOOK: This is just to show that Mr. Shook was a student at Waianae High School on this PHQ, which I forgot to MS. HUGHES: There is so much background noise that it's very hard to hear it. REP. SHOOK: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. HUGHES: Someone who's calling in (inaudible). REP. SHOOK: I get as close as I can, I'm sorry. MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, we need to find—know exactly what exhibit he's holding up. CHR. NAMAHOE: For the record, Mr. Shook is showing a principal's list certificate stat—from June 2009 of Waianae High School and he is comparing it to a summer—he's comparing it to the personal history questionnaire review that has a bottom paragraph that says, "In the summer of 2005, in Hilo, Hawaii" that the same Appellant Shook signed a document or there's a signature there that they said it's his signature of him rear ending a Toyota Camry when he would have been a 14 -year-old child. MR. HALVORSON: No, Madam Chair, I understand that. But I don't know what exhibit number he's holding up on the air. Page 26 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Is this entered into any of the exhibits. REP. SHOOK: No, it's not entered into the exhibits. CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, then, thank you very much. REP. SHOOK: It was just to clarify that Mr. Shook, at that—at the time of this accident was CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. So REP. SHOOK: was a young boy. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, one second here. Out of—we have to have respect for the parliamentary procedure. Do not show anything that you have not already submitted. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: We're going to—we need to stick to the issue at -hand. I'm going to ask, I've been very lenient about this. Representative Shook, I need for you to do your job effectively REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I need you to answer truthfully and then respectfully, along with the County's case. Thank you very much. Let's proceed. Because, if not, I'm going to go back to re-examination from the County. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: No more that, enough. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Won't be—we won't be adding nothing in or nothingI just— CHR. ust CHR. NAMAHOE: I thank you very much. Does the County have furth—anything further to say? MR. MUKAL No. Again, we would—we just object to the general line of questioning. It's being irrelevant and full of leading questions. CHR. NAMAHOE: Understood. Thank you. At this time, I appreciate this. Is there anything further for the witness because, if not— REP. ot REP. SHOOK: Yes. Page 27 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: I'd like to hear it from the Board Members. REP. SHOOK: Well, I have one more thing to point out that he can refer to it. So, on—it's on Number 63/6. CHR. NAMAHOE: From this same exhibit? REP. SHOOK: Communications Number 20-01.03, Exhibit 6. CHR. NAMAHOE: Representative Shook has called into record or to attention Communication Number 20-1.03, Exhibit 6—letter to Wendy Baez. REP. SHOOK: I'm going to refer to the section, paragraph 2, "Generally speaking" and if you go down, it'll say "lifetime" and then it'll say, "These guidelines" just go down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9—and then the 10th line it says, "lifetime. These guidelines"—do you see it? CHR. NAMAHOE: Read it to us, sir. APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, sir. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Please read these guidelines till the end of the sent—the period. APPELLANT SHOOK: "These guidelines are available to all applicants as part of the recruitment notice. Applicants with a criminal record that has been expunged does not necessarily mean that an applicant is eligible for a position in law enforcement. Further, an expungement of a criminal record does not always remove the facts and circumstances that lead to an arrest." REP. SHOOK: The reason I asked you to read that—do you feel that your arrest was proper? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: Do you feel you was CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir MR. MUKAL I would object. CHR. NAMAHOE: why are you leading with that? REP. SHOOK: No, I'm trying to say because he said criminal record, so I'm just— CHR. ust CHR. NAMAHOE: What is your question to him? Let him answer. Page 28 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: Okay. The question is, do you feel your record has anything to do with them denying your ability to be a police officer? MR. MUKAL Speculation. CHR. NAMAHOE: Exactly. REP. SHOOK: May I ask it, again? Do you feel you had done anything wrong that is on record? APPELLANT SHOOK: No. REP. SHOOK: That's all. Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Mr. Shook, Appellant Shook, what is your understanding of why you were not selected as a recruit? APPELLANT SHOOK: That is the case to which we bring this before the Board. We don't know. I received several answers from several different individuals from Officer Davis (sic.), it was my record. When we called him, he said it was my record. However, from Captain Wana of the Police Department, she said someone said something. After asking for clarification, no one communicated past that point. So, I honestly, do not know. And that's why I brought this before the Board. If it's my record, then that's fine. That is something that can be moved past, because it was a petty misdemeanor that was expunged. However, if it's somebody said something, then I shouldn't even apply because that means nowhere in the State or anywhere am I ever going to get in, if that's the case but no one would clarify. If that makes any sense. CHR. NAMAHOE: Having said that, I'm going to ask that of you one more time. I want you to synthesize it for me. What is your understanding? APPELLANT SHOOK: My understanding based on the situation at -hand was that I was singled out, for some reason or another, to simply not be accepted. CHR. NAMAHOE: Now, the jurisdiction of this Board is very broad the Merit Appeals Board. But, specifically, what we need from you today is what specific laws, rules, or regulations are you alleging that were broken, that resulted in you being disqualified? What specific laws? APPELLANT SHOOK: I do not know at this time the specific HRS number or laws in question. I don't know if intimidation by an officer is illegal. Honestly, I don't. I don't know if the manage (sic.) which I was handled during procedure was acceptable by the Police Department in this County that is why we went to the Police Commission Board to ask that's why we made request. And the Police Commission just said we don't—we can't do this here, basically. Page 29 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, this is Chillingworth speaking. I have no questions for the Appellant. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MS. HUGHES: May we now move to executive session? CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, we still have there's still the Appellant has presented his case. MS. HUGHES: Yeah— MR. MUKAL Well, Madam Chair, then if the Appellant has in fact concluded his case, I would move for a directive verdict based on the evidence submitted and the failure to connect any evidence of credible—any credible evidence to any wrongdoing or any violation of either the Hawaii Administrative Rules or the Hawaii Revised Statutes. There's been no evidence. So, I would move at this time for a directive verdict on behalf of the Hawaii County Police Department. APPELLANT SHOOK: May I make a statement, if possible? MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, before entertaining that motion, I think you need to find out whether or not the Appellant has finished with their case. REP. SHOOK: We have not. CHR. NAMAHOE: Have all witnesses testified? REP. SHOOK: No. CHR. NAMAHOE: Will you also be having us entertain your witnesses? Question to the County? MR. MUKAL If my motion for directive verdict CHR. NAMAHOE: It fails. MR. MUKAL fails, I am prepared to put on a case, however, I don't think based on what was presented today, there's any need to move forward. There's been no—other than these wild claims, there's no nexus to any violation of any civil service law or the Hawaii Revised Statutes. So, that leaves CHR. NAMAHOE: And that is the question that I've asked. Page 30 Merit Appeals Board REP. SHOOK: We feel December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: `Cause what you're—what—no. The question that I've asked that we need from you today to present this to us, I appreciate you establishing the track record of events. But the onus is upon you as the Appellant to bring it to us. What specifically was—what specific violations occurred that removed you from the recruit class? Specific. And so, that isI'm concerned because I that's what I've been listening for. REP. SHOOK: Specifically, according to Chief Paul Ferreira, you can only be removed from the PHQ in his statement in Number 6—due to your criminal record. This would be Exhibit Number 20-01—that's page— MR. MUKAL I would object to that characterization. I think this is a response to a Legislative Assistant and I think the letter should speak for itself. REP. SHOOK: And the letter clearly states criminal record. That's the only reason you can be removed. We have had continuous repeats of this response sent to us. Continually that this is the reason why. His record is clear. We will prove there—through his CEGES through their procedures on October 22nd when he was removed, I had his CEGES pulled on September 24. Nothing is in his record. Absolutely nothing. But yet only his record could remove him. CHR. NAMAHOE: County? MR. MUKAL States what the letter says—it doesn't say just because you have an expungement you're automatically disqualified. That's not what the letter says. It mis-states testait mis- states the evidence. And again CHR. NAMAHOE: County, I think it's time then to call your witness. MR. MUKAI: Okay, very well. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. MR. MUKAI: We call MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, I'm not sure the Appellant is finished calling his witnesses? CHR. NAMAHOE: You're right. I may be premature here. Do you have another witness that can add to clarifying what laws have been broken? REP. SHOOK: No, ma'am, weI have a witness, but it's not for that purpose, yeah. And CHR. NAMAHOE: Then if—we need it for that purpose. We need clarity here— REP. SHOOK: Yeah. Page 31 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: —and so, I'm not looking for character, I'm looking for clarity. REP. SHOOK: Yeah. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, I'm going to ask you again, if you have no other witnesses, are we ready to (inaudible). REP. SHOOK: Oh, yes, we're ready. CHR. NAMAHOE: —and move to the County's. REP. SHOOK: We're ready. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. You may have a seat, Appellant Shook, I appreciate this. MR. MUKAL We call Officer—retired Officer Van Reyes. And so, I think if my motion has been denied at this point? CHR. NAMAHOE: Agreed. MR. MUKAL Thank you. (At this time, Mr. Van Reyes, Police Officer III, Hawaii County Police Department, came forward.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. State your name for the record, sir. MR. REYES: Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members of the Board. My name is Van Reyes. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Reyes, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. REYES: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. MUKAL Officer Reyes, you were employed by the Hawaii County Police Department. Is that correct? MR. REYES: Yes, sir. MR. MUKAL And for how long? Page 32 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. REYES: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) MR. MUKAL Okay. And you're currently retired? MR. REYES: Yes, I retired October 1st of this year. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, while you were at the Hawaii County Police Department, did your duties include evaluation and suitability determinations for Police Officer I Recruits in the County of Hawaii? MR. REYES: (Inaudible.) (Note: His microphone was not on.) MR. MUKAL We're here to address the appeal of Reed Shook and I want you to look at Hawaii County's Exhibit 9, which is his internal complaint (SEE COMM. NO. 20-01.03). CHR. NAMAHOE: So, again, that's Communication Number MR. MUKAL It's the Hawaii County's witness and exhibit list, Communication Number 20-1-03. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Exhibit— MR. xhibit MR. MUKAL Nine. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. MUKAL Okay. On page 2, Appellant Shook claims that on October 22, 2019, at 1 p.m., while taking the police psychological review test in Hilo for the position of PO recruit I was accosted by Police Officer—I think it's a misspelling—Reeves in the testing room in front of several other applicants. This occurred right after being fingerprinted and asked me to retake my seat. Now, Officer, do you remember being at this review testing on October 22, 2019? MR. REYES: Yes, I was present. MR. MUKAI: And why were you there? CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir, leave it on, leave it red. You just turned it off. Yeah. MR. REYES: Yes, I was there to assist police applicants with the pre-employment backgrounds. MR. MUKAL Okay. Did you accost Appellant Shook in the testing room? Page 33 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. REYES: No, sir, that's incorrect. MR. MUKAI: You remember what happened? MR. REYES: When the applicants are seated, they're instructed to fill out their pre-employment questionnaire and review it. And they're handed two fingerprint cards blank fingerprint cards that they need to fill out and then they need to be fingerprinted. So, I assisted by starting at the front of the room, at the top, and work my way back—where I'd go up to the applicants and tap them lightly on their shoulders, if they could go up and be fingerprinted by our police cadre that were situated in the back. And then, they can return and continue to review and their personal history questionnaire form. CHR. NAMAHOE: Closer to the mic., sir, for the MR. REYES: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: —for those on the call. MR. REYES: Okay. So, I started from the front of the table and I worked my way back and everybody complied. And then, when I came to the last table on the right, in the back, I came up to Mr. Shook and asked him politely if he could stand up and have his fingerprinted cards—and going back with the officers. And he looked up at me in a smirky manner, like, "Oh, I got to do them now or what?" It's, like, oh, I'm just giving him instruction, if he could just do what I asked him to do. It's just simple and it's going take about a couple minutes, and then he can return to his table. But he went back to his form and just didn't look back at me and ignored me. And so, I was like, wellI went to the next applicant. And after I finished the check in with all the applicants in the room, I immediately went up to Sergeant Grouns and informed him that Mr. Shook had given me some attitude and refused to be fingerprinted at that time when I went up to ask him. MR. MUKAI: Okay. Now, Mr. Shook claims that while he was quietly sitting waiting for further instructions, the officer I'm assuming it's you—aggressively walked in front of my table and scolded me, putting his fingers in my face, deepening his pitch, as if to display dominance and he says, "I simply wanted the verbal attack to stop." Is that what happened? MR. REYES: That is incorrect. MR. MUKAL Okay. Can you explain to the Board MR. REYES: Yes. MR. MUKAL what happened? Page 34 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. REYES: Sure. After all of the applicants were fingerprinted and Mr. Shook was one of the last ones to be fingerprinted, and then I made sure all the applicants fingerprint cards were fingerprinted, and I worked my way back down from the front to the back, and I came up to him and I decided to give him some advice—"During this process, all we ask you to do is just listen to what we're going to instruct you to do"—and that's all I asked. And I continued to move on. MR. MUKAL Okay. Mr. Shook then claims that you took him upstairs to your office, you both sat down at your desk, and you immediately instructed him to sign the form to drop his name from the candidates list saying that, "It wasn't the best move for me" and noting that, "If I failed the test once, I failed for life." Is that what you told Mr. Shook that day? MR. REYES: That is totally incorrect. If I can, Madam Chair, I'd like to explain. MR. MUKAL Please explain to the Board. MR. REYES: And to the Board. Okay. Once the applicants are finished reviewing their personal history questionnaire downstairs in our training room, they will go up to Sergeant Grouns and he would review their report. And then we have a cadre of officers assisting that day and they will be assigned, randomly, taking the applicant outside or wherever is available to interview them and review their personal history questionnaire. So, I was next in line, and Sergeant Grouns assigned me to do Mr. Shook's personal history questionnaire. So, I took him and we went outside of the training room and we went to our office where we sat down at—in our office, where he was across me, and then the presented me with his personal history questionnaire. And I reviewed it and I noticed that he had put down that he was arrested and charged for DUI. Okay. The applicants—and Mr. Shook has a summary form where they can respond to the arrest, which was blank. So, for me as an investigator, I needed to find out what happened with the arrest and charge on the DUI. And I gave him that opportunity to tell me what happened. And because there's nothing on the form for me to go off. So, I needed to ask him truthfully what happened. And all he said that he got arrested and charged for—on the DUI roadblock in Kona, and that's all he said to me. So, I had to inquire further. So, were—"Did you go to court?" "Did you see a judge?" He said, "Yes." "And what did you plead to the judge? Did you please innocent or guilty?" And he said, "I plead guilty." Okay. So, I asked him, "Were you convicted of the DUI charge?" And he said, "Yes." "Did you pay a fine or"—and I think he had to pay a fine. So, that's all I had on to go off of. If he had indicated something in his summary report, but there was nothing that was provided to me. So, from there, I went to a computer to do a background check to verify his statement. And on our computer, our record management Page 35 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 system, I pulled up his name and there was an active DUI arrest and charge and a conviction. And I read the officer's summary report and then I did a HITS check which confirmed that he was arrested and charged and convicted for the crime of DUI. And that's all I had at that time. So, after I looked at that and I gave Mr. Shook some advice. I said, "Based on our guidelines with the Hawaii Police Department, if you are arrested and charged, convicted, or even made an admission that you were under the influence of alcohol, you would have to wait a few years before you can come back and re -apply. So, you have an opportunity. If you want to go forward, more than likely, you're not going to move forward in the process because on our police guidelines, if you got arrested and charged and convicted for a crime, Like DUI, you're going to have to wait a few more years. But, if you want to sign this waiver form, and come back at a later time and re -apply again, it's going to be up to you. I'm not going to force you to do anything like that. So, you have that option." MR. MUKAL Now, Mr. Shook claims that you said, "If he did not get into the department on the first try that you'd never get accepted into HPD on Hawaii Island." Is this true? MR. REYES: I would never say something like that. MR. MUKAL Okay. Mr. Shook claims that you noted that in your experience, by just glancing at his paperwork, that the chief wouldn't accept his application. Is that true? MR. REYES: That's not true. MR. MUKAL Okay. Mr. Shook also claims that you shrugged and said, "That attitude doesn't make for a good officer material. Your references cannot help you here. It's best for you to sign here and drop out." Is that true? MR. REYES: That is incorrect. MR. MUKAL He also testified that you said, "Based on what I see, Mr. Shook, you're not getting in." Did you say that to him? MR. REYES: I would never say something like that to a police applicant. MR. MUKAL Mr. Shook also claims that you target him targeted him in some way. Did you—do you agree with that? MR. REYES: No, sir, that's incorrect. MR. MUKAL Okay. And was this the extent of your involvement with Mr. Shook? MR. REYES: Yes. MR. MUKAL Okay. Thank you, Officer Reyes, I have nothing further. Page 36 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Representative Shook or Appellant Shook, you have questions for him? REP. SHOOK: Officer Reyes, you're very calmly explaining yourself today. Can you tell us how many people was in that room on that day? MR. REYES: Upstairs or REP. SHOOK: We're talking about the bottom room where the class was being held. MR. REYES: Off the top of my head, I think we must have had over 30 applicants `cause this was the afternoon group that came in. I don't have the exact total, but I would assume would be about 30. REP. SHOOK: And, for the record, I'm assuming you approached Reed Shook in the same manner that you are speaking right now? MR. REYES: Yes. REP. SHOOK: And this will be clarified on the video? MR. REYES: Correct. What— REP. hat REP. SHOOK: I'm asking you. MR. REYES: Oh, yeah. REP. SHOOK: That if there was a video, it would show you clearly being calm, collected, and respecting this, yeah? CHR. NAMAHOE: Representative Shook, do you have a video? REP. SHOOK: No, we don't. We requested it. We're waiting for it. We're requested it more than ten times. CHR. NAMAHOE: Then, please, don't speak to anything you cannot enter as an exhibit. REP. SHOOK: Okay. All right. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. REP. SHOOK: Now, Officer, in this PHQ, the candidates were told to bring any paperwork or anything that they needed to clear up their record or anything to do with their record. Am I right? Page 37 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Object to the form of the question REP. SHOOK: Let me ask it again. On the PHQ review, the candidates or the applicants could come with anything like a court review and find that they no longer had this record or anything of that nature? MR. MUKAI: Same objection beyond the scope of direct. REP. SHOOK: One more time, the applicants would have been afforded an opportunity to show you anything that they had to clear up any record questions that you may have had? MR. REYES: If a applicant comes to the Police Department and they bring any type of documents to show us, we'll take a look at it. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Thank you. Now, please look at Communication Number 20.01. (SEE COMM. NO. 20-01.) CHR. NAMAHOE: 20-1. REP. SHOOK: 20.0—it looks like a "l." CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. REP. SHOOK: As the first page, okay? CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. REP. SHOOK: Look at the third page, please? This is Mr. Shook's court from the Intermediate Court of Appeals removing that DUI that you said you saw on his record on 10/22 you saw a DUI. MR. HALVORSON: Excuse me, Madam Chair, I think we need to get further clarification of what exhibit he's looking at-20.01—is incomplete. CHR. NAMAHOE: In the—okay, one second. In the red binder, it's actually in the first section under the red tab called "Communication Number 20-01" there's no MR. HALVORSON: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Yeah, so it's the first MR. HALVORSON: We got it. CHR. NAMAHOE: In the first page, back Page 38 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. HALVORSON: And what page is he on? REP. SHOOK: Number 3. CHR. NAMAHOE: Number 3. "In the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii, Appeal from the District Court of the Third Circuit"—do you all see that? MR. HALVORSON: Yes. CHR. NAMAHOE: In this document, which page are we looking at? REP. SHOOK: We're looking at the front page, we're starting out with the front page. If I may continue? CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. REP. SHOOK: Officer Reyes, in looking at this document, which is in front of you, yeah—it says that Mr. Shook was found innocent of this DUI. In fact, he was charged for two DUI's under the same number. MR. MUKAL I object to the form of the question. There's been no establishment that Officer Reyes even saw an ICA opinion that was issued in 2018. REP. SHOOK: This is what the question is. We're getting to the point that Mr. Reed was never given the chance. He was not given the chance to provide any of this. He was removed. MR. MUKAL Again, Mr.—the arguments are just calling for speculation. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, what I heard earlier is if there was corroborating evidence to clarify something that pulls up let me say this correctly. Earlier, Mr. Reyes, you spoke that if you see a track record of a DUI on in your records, in your databases—what is the process for a recruit to correct that? To amend that? MR. REYES: A documentation would be presented to me and I'll review it, and I'll take it to my supervisor, and we can go from there. But if he would help me, during the PHQ summary report to have state in there about his expungement or any type of thing, to give me a lead to assist me, then we could have moved further with this. REP. SHOOK: Officer Reyes, you said you looked into the computer and the computer told you that these DUI's were current? MR. REYES: That is correct. Page 39 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: This computer, how accurate is it? I'm talking about records. How accurate are you—do you guys keep your records? MR. MUKAL Object to this line of questioning—relevance. REP. SHOOK: The relevance is on January 30'', 2018 the Intermediate Court of Appeals found him innocent in 2018. You're saying that your records indicated he was still guilty. MR. MUKAL Well, object to the form of the question, again, because this is a court opinion and I don't know if these necessarily get posted to the website. REP. SHOOK: These things are not a matter of postage, it's a matter of clearance of record. It's a matter of showing up on what we call—isn't it showed—did it show up on his LEGES? MR. REYES: When I did the background checks on the computer, the record management system is still active, it was an arrest and charge and conviction. I did a check on HITS, I didn't do a check on LEGES. REP. SHOOK: So, what did you do to check on because according to the courts, these records are corrected within the week. This is January 30th, 2018. MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, your representative is not testifying. REP. SHOOK: Oh, okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Right. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. REP. SHOOK: I'm sorry about that. What I'm trying to get at is his record was clear. They should not have shown anything of any DUI's. You said you didn't have to pull his LEGES, is what you're saying. MR. REYES: No, I didn't check on LEGES. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So, if you didn't check on LEGES, what record was you going on? MR. REYES: Like I explained earlier, we had it on a record management system and we have (inaudible) another (inaudible) with HITSH I T S—and that came back closed, arrested, and charged, and convicted. Page 40 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: Officer Reyes, you also stated that he had pleaded guilty to DUI. He went to trial and was found guilty by the judge and was given two DUI's. Okay. But he did not plead guilty. Was you looking at the same records? MR. HALVORSON: Excuse me, Madam Chair MR. MUKAL I object to MR. HALVORSON: not only is the representative testifying, but he's mis-characterizing the evidence. CHR. NAMAHOE: Agreed. MR. HALVORSON: If you look at the decision of the court, that was exactly why the conviction was overturned is because there was something wrong with his plea of guilty. CHR. NAMAHOE: That's what this document is saying. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So, I'll thank you and I'll try to get it down right. Please understand I'm not a lawyer. I am just a member of the public trying to find this system out and see where it goes. CHR. NAMAHOE: I think the concern that we have remember here is that, as the appellant, the onus is upon you. REP. SHOOK: Yeah. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, if we're going to cut hairs, don't do it with a sledgehammer. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Or you're going smash everything that you're trying to achieve. And one more thing, while you have this witness in front of you. The concern that you have in front of you, the question that we are listening to be answered is your understanding what laws were broken that disqualified you as a recruit. APPELLANT SHOOK: If I may ask a question of the CHR. NAMAHOE: You're the Appellant. It's your question to ask. You're the Appellant. APPELLANT SHOOK: If I may ask a question of the witness. So, just to clarify—summarize exactly what he was saying. Just to summarize it in a way that is acceptable. Would you say that the system to which you used is updated on a regular basis to which is viable for the hiring process? To which it would not allow for possible error? Page 41 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL I don't understand the question. CHR. NAMAHOE: Yeah. Yeah. MR. MUKAL And I (inaudible) CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. MUKAI: There's been no APPELLANT SHOOK: I only ask for viability of the systems updated specs. to which the officer should know if he's using it during the review process. The reason why I asked that is because as to summarize what he stated—my conviction was overturned in 2018, however, the PHQ was in October 2019, to which point he says that the DUI was active, the case was—his words was "active" which means that it was a conviction. However, at that point it was overturned to which it should have been updated in the system months ago. It should not have shown at all. CHR. NAMAHOE: I think we're coming to the point where we, the Board members, are going want to start asking questions. APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, ma'am. CHR. NAMAHOE: And so, I want to give the opportunity to my fellow Board members, if you have any questions here—we've heard quite a bit of back and forth—and thank you very much for your patience. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, Chillingworth speaking. I have no questions for the witness. Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, thank you. MR. VENTURA: Madam Chair, this is Mel Ventura, I do have one question for Mr. Reyes. CHR. NAMAHOE: Please. MR. VENTURA: Officer Reyes, can we refer back to Exhibit 2, County Exhibit to the personal history report or what we've been calling the PHQ? CHR. NAMAHOE: So, again, Mr. Ventura, the communication number, which one are you referring to, if you could read it? MR. VENTURA: Oh, I'm sorry, it is Communication 20-01.03, and it is the County's Exhibit 2, which is the PHQ—and we discussed this earlier this morning briefly. Page 42 Merit Appeals Board CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. REYES: Okay, sir, go ahead. December 16, 2020 MR. VENTURA: Okay. We discussed this a little bit earlier this morning. On the last page of that Exhibit 2, the pages aren't numbered, but it is the last page—at the very bottom when it says, "In the summer of 2005" I was involved—"in Hilo, Hawaii at the intersection of Kilauea Avenue and" so on and so forth—speaks of a rear -ending accident. Is that a hypothetical example intended to provide instruction to an applicant who, in this case, is Mr. Shook? Or is that an actual statement made by the applicant? MR. REYES: It's a hypothetical question to assist the applicant, sir. MR. VENTURA: Okay. Thank you, that's all I have. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you for that, Mr. Ventura. Ms. Hughes? We do understand that there're always technical issues. If she chooses to weigh in, maybe I'll just jump ahead of her right now. Mr. Reyes, because what I heard today that there's more than one system that holds legal documentation, you've been mentioning them in acronyms that are mutually understood by both of you, but not by myself and perhaps not by other Board members. And that what I did hear is that what you found is consistent with what is in the system. You were referring to another system the Appellant is referring to a system that may have the updated information. What I need is clarification of—if document "A" would have clarified and updated—would it— let tlet me rewind. Let me say this correctly. Was the decision made to disqualify this applicant as a recruit, did it hinge upon this understanding per the information you had in the databases that you sought through, which was a standing conviction. Was that the basis of his disqualification? MR. REYES: That is incorrect, Madam Chair. CHR. NAMAHOE: Had the Appellant had the opportunity, if he knew that that was the basis of his disqualification, would he have had the opportunity to provide you this updated documentation? Would that have corrected your understanding? MR. REYES: It would make it much more clearer picture, but I will not be able to make that final decision if he's a suitable candidate or not for the police officer position. CHR. NAMAHOE: Was the DUI theI'm going to ask it again. Was the DUI the principle reason that he was disqualified as a recruit? MR. REYES: From my knowledge, no, ma'am. Page 43 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: How long is the recruit process? MR. REYES: It can take CHR. NAMAHOE: For a police officer? How long is the police officer recruit a recruit? MR. REYES: Six months. CHR. NAMAHOE: Six months. Within that six months, what is the expectation of those recruits in order to successfully pass recruit—the recruitment process? MR. REYES: Oh, there's a variety of things, ma'am—classroom work, firearms, weaponless defense, arrest control techniques, classroom work, and so forth. CHR. NAMAHOE: Within that six months or prior to the six months, is the background check completed? Sorry, I need to ask that—that was a question. It didn't sound like it, but when is the background check completed? Prior to the recruit process or during the recruit process. MR. REYES: The back—the—it's a pre-employment— CHR. re-employment CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. REYES: prior to hire, so we do the background checks. It could take three months to six months. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, is the background check completed while they—recruit is a recruit? MR. REYES: No, ma'am. CHR. NAMAHOE: It's completed prior to the recruit becoming a recruit? MR. REYES: That is correct. CHR. NAMAHOE: In order to become a recruit, the background is completed? MR. REYES: Yes, you have to have the backgrounds completed. MR. HALVORSON: If I may, Madam Chair, since I end up writing the decisions in this case, Iif I could ask a couple questions. If you don't mind, speed the process up. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Halvorson. MR. HALVORSON: Mr. Reyes, were you the final decision maker on whether or not the applicant would be disqualified? Page 44 Merit Appeals Board MR. REYES: No, sir. MR. HALVORSON: Do you know who was? MR. REYES: I'm sorry, can you just repeat that, sir? MR. HALVORSON: Do you know who was? MR. REYES: The final will be the police chief to make the decision. December 16, 2020 MR. HALVORSON: And you know—you reviewed the personal history background check. Was there somebody else that reviewed the suitability material and made a recommendation to the chief? MR. REYES: Yes, from me it goes to my sergeant, and from the sergeant it goes to the captain, and from the captain it goes to the major, and major goes to the assistant chief, and assistant chief it goes to the deputy chief, and then finally to the police chief, sir. MR. HALVORSON: And who was your sergeant at the time? MR. REYES: Sergeant Jason Grouns. MR. HALVORSON: So, ask you to take a look at this same exhibit -20-01.03, Exhibit 7. This is a memo dated December 20t', 2019. You see that? MR. REYES: Yes, I do. MR. HALVORSON: And it's—and who's it from? MR. REYES: Sergeant Jason Grouns. MR. HALVORSON: And that's your sergeant? MR. REYES: That is correct. MR. HALVORSON: So, he's making a recommendation to the police chief regarding background inquiries? MR. REYES: Yes, sir. MR. HALVORSON: And this includes more than just the personal history report that you reviewed? MR. REYES: That is correct. Page 45 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. HALVORSON: He actually checks with references and other things. Is that correct? MR. REYES: Yes, sir. MR. HALVORSON: Look at the second page of this exhibit. There's a chart there, a matrix. About half -way down, it says, "Arrested." MR. REYES: I see that, sir. MR. HALVORSON: And in the far right-hand column, at the bottom of that block, it says, "Court of Appeals where the conviction was reversed. Incident was expunged July 2018." Do you see that? MR. REYES: Yes, sir. MR. HALVORSON: Now, you didn't have that information when you reviewed the personal history report? MR. REYES: No, sir. MR. HALVORSON: But it was clearly put in this report that your sergeant sent out to the chief. MR. REYES: Yes. He did a more extensive background investigation on the applicant. MR. HALVORSON: And when you say it can take up to six months to do the background check, this was well this was two months after a year of meeting with the Appellant? MR. REYES: I believe so. MR. HALVORSON: I hope that's helpful, Madam Chair. CHR. NAMAHOE: It is. Thank you. So, barring further information or further witnesses, if the County is ready to settle this, then we'd be ready to go into executive session. Unless you would like to MR. MUKAL Because we started down this road already, I think I need to present the entire my entire case. CHR. NAMAHOE: That's your prerogative. Yeah. MR. MUKAL Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Page 46 Merit Appeals Board MR. MUKAL I would call CHR. NAMAHOE: Your next witness. MR. MUKAL I would call Sergeant Grouns. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. REYES: Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members of the Board. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Reyes. MR. MUKAL I don't intend to call him. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. MUKAL Madam Chair, I'll try and speed it up, and cut where I can. December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: No, I appreciate the wheels of justice have to turn. I thank you very much for all of your time. (At this time, Mr. Jason Grouns, Sergeant, Hawaii County Police Department, came forward.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir, thank you, if you would state for your name for the record? MR. GROUNS: (Inaudible. The microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. GROUNS: Yes, I do. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, sir. MR. MUKAL Sergeant Grouns, where do you work? MR. GROUNS: I work at the Hilo Police Department in Administration. MR. MUKAL And how long have you been a police officer? MR. GROUNS: Twenty-one years. MR. MUKAL And do your duties include the evaluation and suitability, determination for Police Officer I Recruit in the County of Hawaii? Page 47 Merit Appeals Board MR. GROUNS: Yes, I do. December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL And we're here to talk about the appeal of Mr. Reed Shook. And I would direct you to on the table in front of you, Communication 20-1-03, that's the County of Hawaii Police Department's exhibit list. If you could take a look at Exhibit 1? MR. GROUNS: Okay. MR. MUKAL It's an application for employment. Is that correct? MR. GROUNS: Correct. MR. MUKAL Now, on page 5, I noticed that personal references are requested. Why is that? MR. GROUNS: We make contact with personal references to get an idea of the applicant's character and personal attributes. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, like on page 5, if you look, there's—if information is missing and we've pointed that out, what do you do about it? MR. GROUNS: There is information missing, in this case, we would call back the applicant and ask if they were able to obtain or if they already had that information and provide it to us over the phone. MR. MUKAL And do you remember if Mr. Shook did, in fact, fill in the blank so to speak? MR. GROUNS: I contacted Mr. Shook initially regarding, I think, it was a phone number for a former employer that wasn't working. MR. MUKAL Take a look at Exhibit 2, next in order. MR. GROUNS: Yes. MR. MUKAL And it's "PHQ" on the top—"Personal History Report." What is this document? MR. GROUNS: The Personal History Report, the PHQ, is given to applicants who successfully pass the agility course. They take the PHQ. It's—I think it's around 225-ish questions regarding their background, employment information, life experiences, and whatnot. And after we—it's a bubble test. After we submit the bubble test, it comes back in this report format and we call the applicants back in to review this report with them. MR. MUKAL Okay. Next exhibit in order is Exhibit 3. You see that "Expungement Order?" MR. GROUNS: Yes. Page 48 Merit Appeals Board MR. MUKAL What is this? December 16, 2020 MR. GROUNS: This is an expungement order for a 2016 DUI case involving Mr. Shook. MR. MUKAL Now, you made a recommendation at the end about Mr. Shook. Is that correct? MR. GROUNS: Yes. MR. MUKAL Did this DUI or the expungement have any bearing on your recommendation for non -suitability? MR. GROUNS: No, not at all. MR. MUKAL Take a look at Exhibit 4, next in order. MR. GROUNS: Okay. MR. MUKAL And it's an "Amended Judgement" dated July 2nd, 2018. What is this document? MR. GROUNS: Amended judgement regarding that same—appears to be a same DUI arrest. MR. MUKAL And, again, same question—did this or the DUI have any bearing on your eventual recommendation to Chief Ferreira about the suitability of Mr. Shook? MR. GROUNS: No, it did not. MR. MUKAL Take a look at Exhibit 7 MR. GROUNS: Okay. MR. MUKAL What is this document? MR. GROUNS: This is the background investigation memorandum. The background was conducted by myself and this is what we forwarded to Chief Ferreira. MR. MUKAL Now, can you explain to the Board what is the process—what do you do prior to preparing Exhibit 7? MR. GROUNS: There's—it's quite an extensive process for the background checks. We start off with the applicant's application form. And, of course, we're going to reach out and contact all of the character references provided. We contact all of the former employers and supervisors. We do computer checks to look for any police contact, citations, criminal history we do NCIC federal checks. We also go to the neighborhood and check with the neighbors surrounding the applicant to see if they have any feedback for us. Page 49 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Can you describe or tell the Board in preparing Exhibit 7, what were issues that you felt were, kind of, red flags or kind of—you felt were questionable. MR. GROUNS: Some of the issues that came up while conducting this particular background, as I mentioned previously, I did have a hard time reaching one of the former employers. And, at that time, I had reached out to Mr. Shook to see if he could provide any further information as it wasn't included in the application. Some of the feedback obtained from the references was not all together favorable from previous employers and from character references. MR. MUKAL Take a look at the next exhibit in order, Exhibit 8. MR. GROUNS: Okay. MR. MUKAL And what is this document? MR. GROUNS: This is a memorandum from myself to Chief Ferreira which is a suitability memorandum, I guess, I would call it. MR. MUKAL Okay. At the bottom of the page, you recommended that Mr. Shook not be given a conditional offer of employment. Is that correct? MR. GROUNS: Correct. MR. MUKAL And can you, kind of, describe for the Board why? MR. GROUNS: As it states in the memorandum, which I think I summarized during the recommendation part, there was information that was obtained, as I said, from some of his references regarding his personality and character traits that, in my experience, don't fit that of a police officer. There was also an incident, when I contacted Mr. Shook via phone to sort out the phone number problem with a former employer that he began—he became a little upset over the phone and he, kind of, swore out loud over the phone, which is alarming to me being that as an employer contacting an applicant—that type of outburst is not acceptable at all. MR. MUKAL Okay. And, in fact, you document that incident on page 2. Is that correct? MR. GROUNS: Yes. MR. MUKAL Now, after you submitted this document to Chief Ferreira, did he ever tell you that needed more information or to follow-up with anything further, after you submitted 8 to him? Page 50 Merit Appeals Board MR. GROUNS: No, he did not. December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Mr. Shook has also argued that his PHQ or Personal History Report was somehow the basis for your recommendation. Is that the case? MR. GROUNS: No. He moved forward after the PHQ process. If an applicant doesn't go past the PHQ, we don't conduct the background check. It ends at the PHQ review. MR. MUKAL Okay. And, also, on Exhibit 10 in his Merit Appeals Board complaint he Mr. Shook claims that an incident with Sergeant Reyes on October 22, 2019, was the basis for your recommendation. Is that true? MR. GROUNS: I wasn't aware of an incident with Officer Reyes—nothing was brought to my attention that day not until we later got summoned to a Police Commission complaint was I aware of it. MR. MUKAL And what happened at that Police Commission hearing? MR. GROUNS: I was asked questions about whether or not I had seen any incident occur within the PHQ of anybody being accosted or voices raised or anything—and nothing was brought to my attention. MR. MUKAL Okay. And do you know if the Police Commission issued any decision? MR. GROUNS: NotI believed that they had stated that that's that was not the venue for that type of complaint. MR. MUKAL Okay. Mr. Shook, in his appeal, claims that the DUI, which was ultimately expunged was the basis for your recommendation of not being suitable. Is that correct? MR. GROUNS: The DUI had nothing to do with that—the suitability. MR. MUKAI: Now, at some point in time, in fact in mid-November, Mr. Shook's father, Robert Shook, called you. Remember that? MR. GROUNS: Yes. MR. MUKAL And then, what happened? MR. GROUNS: I think it was on November 10h Mr. Shook's father called and was asking some questions about emails that I had sent to Mr. Shook regarding the application process inquiring about some of the stuff that was going to be talked about today during this hearing. Page 51 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 And towards the end of the conversation, he had indicated that he didn't understand how we would choose applicants from other districtsKa`u, Puna, other districts on the Big Island over Mr. Shook, who was from Waianae, which he referred to as a "war torn community"—and he referred to the Big Island as, I'll quote him, "Fucking child's play." MR. MUKAL Okay. In his appeal, Mr. Shook that—he notes, somehow, that the Hawaii County Police Department abused its power in not finding him suitable. Do you agree with that statement? MR. GROUNS: Not at all. MR. MUKAL He also claims he was being singled out, harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against. Do you agree with those statements? MR. GROUNS: No, I do not. MR. MUKAL At—okay, thank you. I have nothing further. REP. SHOOK: Sergeant Grouns, you stated that Mr. Shook's DUI record had no bearing on this removal? MR. GROUNS: Correct. REP. SHOOK: But in a conversation that we had with you over the phone, which we both were there. MR. GROUNS: Mm-hmm. REP. SHOOK: You stated it was his record and you stated that I could find these things in his history, in his—this—and only you, the Police Department, could see. When I told you, I have the same clearance as you do, I can see everything you see, and I had his CEGES records pulled. MR. GROUNS: Mm-hmm. REP. SHOOK: Two days after he was removed from the PHQ, which is present in this report. MR. GROUNS: Mm-hmm. REP. SHOOK: Perfectly, clean. What record was you referring to? MR. MUKAL To the form of the question, I have no idea where he's leading. REP. SHOOK: Well, Sergeant Grouns knows. Page 52 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: I need you to be clear at what the information you are looking to hear from Mr. Grouns. What is he corroborating or what is he disputing you're cross-examining the witness. REP. SHOOK: I want to know Mr.Sergeant Grouns, what record was you looking at on the conversation of October 25�' between my son and yourself, what record you was looking at? What computer record was he looking at that stated his DUI record was the reason for his removal? MR. GROUNS: The D— MR. MUKAL States evidence. REP. SHOOK: Let the witness speak. MR. GROUNS: The DUI was not—had nothing to do with him being removed. The DUI was not—when I spoke to you on the phone, I informed you that his DUI being expunged was not going to affect his going through in the process. And I also informed you that I was going to personally do the background check myself, which I did. The DUI had nothing to do with it. Had there been a DUI conviction that was standing and not expunged that would have affected - he would have been excluded right there at the PHQ. But we moved him forward. We did his background checks. REP. SHOOK: Thank you. Thank you for that. This is the reason we coming to the next question. You said you did his PHQ. Was he to be present at the time of this PHQ? MR. GROUNS: He was present in the room with 40 -some other applicants. REP. SHOOK: We also have Sergeant Reyes saying he removed him. I mean, Officer Reyes saying he removed him. So, is—was he present when you went through this PHQ with him or was he removed.? MR. GROUNS: Let me explain the process. When an applicant finishes their PHQ, they bring all of their paperwork to the front of the room where I am overseeing the entire process. As an application comes to me or an applicant comes to me, I will either take it myself or hand it off to one of my background investigators. Officer Reyes is one of my background investigators. When Mr. Shook came up and handed me his paperwork, I look at who's available, Officer Reyes was standing there and I handed it to him. Each applicant will sit outside with that investigator and then will go over it, one-on-one, and any—talk about any serious or critical admissions and whether or not the candidate moves forward or needs further explanation on questions. Page 53 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 So, it's not me personally doing the in excess of 100 -plus applicants that we have but who's available. So, it's either myself or another four or five investigators that are present. Officer Reyes took care of Mr. Shook's. REP. SHOOK: Again, you said you did his PHQ personally. MR. GROUNS: I did. REP. SHOOK: You just said this. MR. GROUNS: I did his background check personally. REP. SHOOK: Background—okay. MR. GROUNS: Yes. REP. SHOOK: Who did his PHQ with him? MR. GROUNS: Officer Reyes. He did the PHQ with everybody at the same time in the group. CHR. NAMAHOE: Representative Shook, respect in this room, please. REP. SHOOK: Yes, I understand. I'm just trying to get to the point, please. Okay. What I'm trying to get at, sir, is Reed Shook is claiming that during this process he was harassed, he was humiliated—okay. He was taken upstairs when everybody else was down. Then brought back down and walked out the door. At what point, did anybody go through this PHQ process with him? MR. GROUNS: You're speaking of—that Officer Reyes is the one that went over the process with him. We have limited space to take our applicants and we do afford them some privacy. We have a couple of picnic tables. So, when we go outside—when the investigator takes the applicant outside, the picnic tables are taken. Myself and Officer Reyes have an office right above the training room where the whole PHQ process took place. It's not uncommon for Officer Reyes to go up to his desk and sit down, we have a table in there—and they're afforded that privacy. And they will go over the PHQ, one-on-one, with the applicant. I'm sure he took another four or five or six applicants up there as well that day. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Let's accept it. Now, Reed has testified that upon going to the office he was asked to sign a waiver. On his refusal to sign the waiver, he was brought down the office, walked to the door, and Officer Reyes closed the door behind him. So, the question is, who did the PHQ with him? CHR. NAMAHOE: Hang on, that was already asked— Page 54 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAI: Asked and answered. CHR. NAMAHOE: it was already established that it was Mr. Reyes— REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: —and you're asking him to weigh in when you didn't name him as being one of the people that walked him out. REP. SHOOK: Well, what I CHR. NAMAHOE: I'm going to ask you one more time, sir, respectfully, we need clarity. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: There is a question that I have mentioned more than once that I'm listening to be answered. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Here it comes. Sergeant Grouns, who passed him on the PHQ? MR. MUKAL (Inaudible) relevance. REP. SHOOK: Sergeant Grouns stated earlier that he had done it. So, that's the relevance, if it was CHR. NAMAHOE: He just said that he did the backheI heard him say he did the background check when you asked him that question. And that Mr. Reyes was the one who did the PHQ. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Let me clarify the background check. Can you tell me the CHR. NAMAHOE: Wait. No. Again, I'm going to ask it for the last time, sir, I need clarity. I'm listening for a question to be answered. All questions and questioning needs to drive us to that point. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I thank you for your precision and accuracy. If the question has been answered, I'm listening for a new question so we can get to determination. REP. SHOOK: Okay. I'm sorry about that. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. REP. SHOOK: Sergeant Grouns, can you tell me when his background check was conducted? Page 55 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. GROUNS: His background check would have been conducted, I think I started it, maybe a week or so following the PHQ. There's a lot of steps involved after the PHQ prior to being able to conduct background checks. REP. SHOOK: Can you tell us what the background checks consist of? MR. GROUNS: I believe I answered that already. REP. SHOOK: What I am getting to is the phone calls was the—is the background check part of the phone calls to the employers or the neighbors? MR. GROUNS: Neighbors are—we walk around the neighborhood, in person, and knock-on doors. Employers and references, we call over the phone. REP. SHOOK: Is it roughly within that weeks' time that you're saying? MR. GROUNS: It can be spaced out. We have in excessusually, in excess of 70 between 70 and 100 applicants to take care of. So, it does take some time. Sometimes it takes several weeks to finish a background check. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So, during this background check, there were things that came up basically, what we're hearing is because he didn't put a last name to the first name. He didn't have an address. Would any of these points here be brought up in the PHQ? MR. GROUNS: Not at all. REP. SHOOK: Would he be given an opportunity to re -address the last name, re -address the address. Sometimes phone numbers change. Would he have been given an opportunity to at least address this? MR. GROUNS: Yes, and he was. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Can you tell me at what stage or at what point he would be given this opportunity to address this? MR. GROUNS: As I explained, if I find missing information in the application, I will contact the applicant at some point and ask them to provide that information. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Officer Grouns, Sergeant Grouns, you stated that he had used colorful language. MR. GROUNS: Yes. REP. SHOOK: You also stated that I used colorful language, which Page 56 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. GROUNS: Yes. REP. SHOOK: pretty much it's in my nature, but it's not in his. MR. GROUNS: Okay. REP. SHOOK: Okay? The reason I'm bringing it up is because when all of these references were noted or notified or whatnot, one of them, you put down on your response this should be Matthew Sapanara—he would be former intelligence analyst Kona Vice Section HPD during November of last year of 2019. Mr. Sapanara, you stated he didn't answer the phone on your check. Mr. Sapanara works with Reed and he stated—`cause he swears, that's why he left the department, he swears, he MR. MUKAL Object to this narrative storytelling with no point— CHR. oint CHR. NAMAHOE: Point made. REP. SHOOK: Okay. You forgot to put down Mr. Sapanara's recommendation. Do you remember speaking to Mr. Sapanara? CHR. NAMAHOE: Representative Shook, I don't understand the goal you are trying to achieve in this line of questioning. REP. SHOOK: Well, ma'am, Mr. Sapanara's statement or his recommendation was not put down on the police reference. They—he—it was stated in his office stating that Mr. (inaudible) Sapanara did not answer the phone. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, the reason why I believe all of this is being brought up, is there's paperwork, there's the application provided, the onus is upon any applicant to provide reasonable, accurate, and thorough information. The lack of you doing so on more than one instance, that is a trend on the paperwork you have also stated earlier that you had an answer for the different reasons why you had the lack of information that you did. You've already established, sir, that you've had communication with the Appellant to fix it. I'd like us to move to the next point. We need to move the train. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I'm losing my patience with this because I'm not hearing what has been violated in the disqualification of the Appellant. REP. SHOOK: That's the question, ma'am, I'm sorry. That is what we're trying to find out on this disqualification—it's like Page 57 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: The case is yours, sir. Mr. Reed Shook, the case is yours. And I appreciate the opportunity to hear it. This is an appropriate venue for you. But, again, what laws were broken disqualifying you? REP. SHOOK: Retaliation, harassment. MR. MUKAL Also, Madam Chair, I also object because this is just a fishing expedition. There's nothing. So, he's hoping that something comes— CHR. NAMAHOE: And, frankly, the County has a point. REP. SHOOK: Well, we sorry. CHR. NAMAHOE: The County has ano this is good. We need to go through this. I understand this. We're not attorneys. I'm not an attorney. You're not an attorney. I understand the process as it is. But I thank you all for your time. I am the onus is upon me to keep it moving so that we can reach a reasonable and justified conclusion with all of the evidence that's being presented to us. But, again, as the Appellants, the onus is upon you. If you don't prove it, we can't substantiate it. REP. SHOOK: Okay. All right. CHR. NAMAHOE: And you've had several hours to prove it. REP. SHOOK: Well, can we CHR. NAMAHOE: No—not— REP. o—not REP. SHOOK: Can we ask CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, I'm this is where we're at, gentlemen, this is where we're at. I may have already spoken out of term. But I need you to know what's being heard by how you are presenting your case. You may continue and finish with this witness. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Sergeant Grouns, who makes the final decision on removing a candidate? MR. GROUNS: Chief Ferreira. REP. SHOOK: Chief Ferreira makes final decision. Okay. Is there anybody else that you speak to about this on final decision? MR. GROUNS: What do you mean by that. Can you clarify? Page 58 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: Is there anybody like a captain, a lieutenant—is there anybody—is there any other steps before it goes to Chief Ferreira. MR. GROUNS: All of my memorandums will go up the chain through the proper channels. I have a captain above me, I have a major, an AC, a Deputy Chief will see it, and it goes to the Chief finally for his final decision. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So, the chief makes the final decision based on facts, based on your recommendation, based on what that you know of, that you provide? MR. GROUNS: All of the facts and information that was gathered as a part of the investigation process, the background investigation process. REP. SHOOK: Okay. Does the chief also have a say or recommendation in possibly moving somebody up from another class into another class? MR. MUKAL Objection. CHR. NAMAHOE: I'm going to thank you very much with this. We are now MR. MUKAL I just objected, sorry. CHR. NAMAHOE: No, I understand. I REP. SHOOK: I'm asking be CHR. NAMAHOE: I've asked for clarity. And that is not relevant to the issue. REP. SHOOK: Okay. So CHR. NAMAHOE: Other—whoever—it's not relevant to the issue. The issue of who is applying to be recruits and how they get moved up REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: —has nothing to do with Reed Shook. REP. SHOOK: Well, it has to do because— CHR. NAMAHOE: No. REP. SHOOK: he was removed. CHR. NAMAHOE: No, it does not. That has nothing to do with applying for any job. Page 59 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 REP. SHOOK: No, but what I'm stating is that he was removed from that class, period. CHR. NAMAHOE: What I'm stating is—needs to be heard. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: And I'm not being heard. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, are we ready for another witness? Are we pau with this one? REP. SHOOK: Well, let me ask him a few more questions. CHR. NAMAHOE: No. REP. SHOOK: Very, very simple. CHR. NAMAHOE: No, because I have already had this pushback with you back and forth and, yet, you have not—in my already this is my third time pushing on you. I'm not hearing new information out of Mr. Grouns. REP. SHOOK: Well. CHR. NAMAHOE: I am not hearing it from you. REP. SHOOK: Okay, so CHR. NAMAHOE: And I've been listening for it. And I've told you, sir, I told you, sir. I'm not hearing you ask any pertinent questions out of him, one after the other. REP. SHOOK: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: And I'm also not understanding your goal with the questions. I'm not hearing it. So, I don't know where your ideas are, but we are not getting any closer to the big question being answered. So, if we do not have a change right now, then it is either time for us to move to the next witness because I don't need to see Mr. Grouns put through this anymore. MR. MUKAL Thank you, Madam Chair, I would—our next witness would be Chief Paul Ferreira. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. Page 60 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. GROUNS: Madam Chair, thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you for your time. I thank all of us for our patience and for our precision. I know this is not easy, but we all have our own burdens here. MR. MUKAL May Sergeant Grouns be released? II'mI don't intend to call him. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. (At this time, Mr. Paul K. Ferreira, Chief, Hawaii County Police Department, came forward.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, sir, if you would state your name for the record, please then turn on the microphone. Just leave it on. Thank you. MR. FERREIRA: Paul K. Ferreira. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. FERREIRA: Yes, ma'am, I do. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, sir. MR. MUKAL Chief, what position do you serve with the Hawaii County Police Department? MR. FERREIRA: I'm currently the Police Chief. MR. MUKAL And how long have you served with the Hawaii County Police Department? MR. FERREIRA: I was hired on July 1, 1982. MR. MUKAI: And what part of your duties—do they also include the evaluation and determination of suitability for Police Officer 1 Recruits in the County of Hawaii? MR. FERREIRA: Yes, it does. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, we're here to address the appeal of Mr. Reed Shook. Can you describe for the Board what Sergeant Grouns role was in Mr. Shook's case? MR. FERREIRA: Sergeant Grouns is one of our investigators that conducts the background investigations and looks at recruits as they're applying. There are several phases in the recruit process the recruitment process part of it being the testing that is conducted by County Human Resources, and then when the names are referred to us, we begin our background investigation. Sergeant Grouns is one of those investigators. Page 61 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. MUKAL Okay. Sergeant Grouns described for us what he did. Take a look on Communication Number 20-1-03, that's the County of Hawai`i's witness list and exhibit. And I would just direct you to Exhibit 7, at this time. The December 20, 2019 memo from Sergeant Grouns to yourself. Do you see that? MR. FERREIRA: Yes, I do. MR. MUKAL And what is this document? MR. FERREIRA: The December 7—Exhibit 7 that you're referring to is the actual background investigation information that he has compiled listing the applicant's name, their background history, criminal history, character references, witness—anybody that was spoken to. MR. MUKAL Anything about Exhibit 7 raised concerns to you about Mr. Shook being suitable for a Hawaii County police officer recruit? MR. FERREIRA: Exhibit 7 is also accompanied by Exhibit 8, which is a cover memo that Sergeant Grouns will have attached to the file. In his cover memo, Exhibit 8, this will be where he will summarize the investigation, what has happened. He'll point out any key factors that had come up. Any factors that should be considered by me as the Chief in making a determination. He will provide a recommendation to the Chief's office as far as whether or not a candidate is suitable or unsuitable to move forward, at this point. MR. MUKAL Okay. Now, did you ever at any point go back to Sergeant Grouns and say, "Look, I need you to look at this more. Can you do more investigation. I need more information." Did that ever happen? MR. FERREIRA: Not with regards to this memo. No. MR. MUKAL You ultimately decided what would happen with Mr. Shook not being qualified to be a Hawaii County Police Department Recruit L Is that correct? MR. FERREIRA: Yes, I did. MR. MUKAL Can you just describe for the Board why you believed Mr. Shook was not suitable. MR. FERREIRA: At this point in the stage is the recruitment stage this is still in preliminary. There's been no conditional offer of employment extended. The initial review by Sergeant Grouns was involving past employer and also pre—current employer that had made statements with regards to Mr. Shook's maturity level, his character, his responsibility—and he was performing duties of a security guard, which is similar to that of a law enforcement officer. Page 62 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 These concerns were raised in the background investigation. And what really added to this issue that came up with a red flag is when a character reference that was provided also corroborates some of the information that was there. In this situation, I look at it that a character reference is someone that we—it's not someone we seek out. This is the name of an individual that is provided to us by the applicant. So you would expect a glowing recommendation. When we get any concern raised and it corroborates what we find in the initial background, I will tend to reject the applicant from going forward into a conditional offer. MR. MUKAL So, would the same decision be imposed under the same or similar circumstances? MR. FERREIRA: The same thing would apply to anyone that applies, and it has been applied in the past. MR. MUKAL Because, basically, consistent with what the Hawaii County Police Department does? MR. FERREIRA: Yes. And I've been involved with the recruitment process since 1999, in one form or another. MR. MUKAL Do you agree that the Hawaii County Police Department abused its power? MR. FERREIRA: No, we did not. MR. MUKAL Do you agree with Mr. Shook's claim that he was being singled out, harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against? MR. FERREIRA: No, he was not. MR. MUKAL Okay, finally, Chief, I just want you to address—if there's anything further you would like to tell the Merit Appeals Board about Mr. Shook and his—what made him be deemed not suitable for employment as a Police Officer I Recruit? MR. FERREIRA: All of the information that is contained in the memorandum that Sergeant Grouns prepared and the background investigation conducted is what the decision was based upon—solely on that recommendation. There was noI did not, in fact, even meet Mr. Shook until well after the fact. MR. MUKAL (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) APPELLANT SHOOK: Police Chief Officer Ferreira, so you would say that—and you have said that the entire—one of the basis for hiring was the recommendation of Sergeant Grouns? MR. FERREIRA: Based on the file that he had prepared. Yes. Page 63 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: That's based on his background—he did the background check and he did his recommendation based on the information provided in the PHQ? MR. FERREIRA: He did his recommendation based on all of the factors that was involved review of the witness—not witness—excuse me, the recommendation from past employers, in contacting character references. There was no mention made of anything in the PHQ in the background investigation. APPELLANT SHOOK: Okay. Just for clarification, nobody—my bad—let me rephrase that. During his background check, nobody double checks his call of record or reference to the reference check, right? MR. FERREIRA: I have no reason to doubt what he's putting down to providing it to me. APPELLANT SHOOK: And just for clarification, as stated by former police officer Reyes, you—all police officers currently in the Hilo station use the same backgroundI want to say system. MR. FERREIRA: Try that again? APPELLANT SHOOK: All police officers in the Hilo station currently use the same background check system? MR. FERREIRA: Yes. APPELLANT SHOOK: Okay. REP. SHOOK: Chief Ferreira MR. MUKAL I would object to two people questioning the witness. REP. SHOOK: Is it okay for me to continue? CHR. NAMAHOE: I don't understand your objection? I don't understand your objection. MR. MUKAL There's two there'sI guess there's two separate entities questioning the Chief, so I would just object. CHR. NAMAHOE: Is this against protocol? Is that the reason for objection? MR. HALVORSON: Yes. I will concur with that. Normally, only one person is allowed to examine the witness. Page 64 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you for the clarification. You may continue, Appellant, you have any more questions. APPELLANT SHOOK: Police Chief Officer Ferreira, do you know about the complaint made against Sergeant Jason Grouns, 10/25/19? MR. FERREIRA: This was a complaint filed with? APPELLANT SHOOK: This complaint was for internal complaint form, County of Hawai `i. CHR. NAMAHOE: Does this have to do with your case, Mr. Shook? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, ma'am. This is on Comm. Number 20-01.03, Exhibit 9. A complaint was made against Officer Jason Grouns—Sergeant Jason Grouns three days, I believe, after the PHQ, and Sergeant Jason Grouns was the one to do the background check and assessment on me for the PHQ. Now, I just want to call in—what is it, what I'm looking for—contrast—contrast of interest, I believe is the word? Conflict of interest—how can somebody who has a complaint against them do a background check on them? For example, if I have a beef with you, and you're the one that's—let's say, I'm going for a job. MR. HALVORSON: Madam Chair, this isn't a question CHR. NAMAHOE: Yeah. MR. HALVORSON: —this is a narrative. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. Police Chief, are you able to answer the comment that he's making regarding this internal complaint form? MR. FERREIRA: Well, I'm reading the internal complaint form now, and it states that the incident occurred on 10/22/19 that he attempted to resolve the complaint on 10/25/19, but the complaint was not filed until July 7t', 2020. Sergeant Grouns' investigation was continued until December 2019. So, the complaint was filed, in fact, after his investigation was already completed. So, the relevance of saying that the complaint is made against Sergeant Grouns that he's doing the background investigation, I don't see it. CHR. NAMAHOE: Right. So, if the complaint was from 10/25 but it wasn't filed until eight months later? Nine months later? Page 65 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: We attemptedoh, okay. We attempted to file it verbally as well as in person, in writing, we have noon the 25h, however, we have no idea why it took so long to process. We put it in on the 25h. CHR. NAMAHOE: Is this your signature on the bottom of the complaint? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, ma'am. CHR. NAMAHOE: Is that your handwriting for the date? APPELLANT SHOOK: Yeah. CHR. NAMAHOE: So—and you don't understand why? APPELLANT SHOOK: That was due to us being sent to the Police Commission on that date, if I remember. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, asking again, this internal complaint is something that you tried to file but you didn't file for another eight/nine months because of other events? Because of your going to the Police Commission? No, please—you could just as a timeline REP. SHOOK: I have to (inaudible). CHR. NAMAHOE: I understand, but this is kind of a simple question from me. APPELLANT SHOOK: So, we tried to make the complaint verbal and in writing, however, we were told to make it at the Police Commission, which is what took it—which is why we don't understand why it took so long. How can you make a complaint when you're directed to another area after you've submitted it? CHR. NAMAHOE: Don't direct I mean, I understand. I'm just trying to you can also understand, I'm trying to understand your timeline here— APPELLANT SHOOK: Yes, ma'am. CHR. NAMAHOE: —and why it's being brought up as a question to the police chief. I say we move on to your next point. APPELLANT SHOOK: Police Chief Officer Ferreira, do you agree with the entire process of my case in this matter? MR. FERREIRA: I don't understand your question. Agree with the process of your case? APPELLANT SHOOK: Do you believe with the entirety of the process to which everything that's transpired to lead up to this point? Page 66 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. FERREIRA: I still don't understand what you're asking. CHR. NAMAHOE: Yeah. I'm concerned by your question? MR. FERREIRA: Am I comf—and I believe in the process that's taking place, that it comes before the Merit Appeals Board? Yes. And I believe in the complaint form? I agree with that. If that's what you're asking. APPELLANT SHOOK: Yeah. (Note: During this time, Representative Shook was speaking with the microphone off.) REP. SHOOK: See, the hard part about this is trying to utilize this CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir? REP. SHOOK: And, we sorry. MR. FERREIRA: No. I—don't apologize. This is the process. REP. SHOOK: There's a few questions here that is hard for me to CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir? REP. SHOOK: Yes? CHR. NAMAHOE: Sir? REP. SHOOK: Yes? MS. HUGHES: Could you please speak closer to the mic.? Iwhoever's speaking. I cannot hear. CHR. NAMAHOE: No, no, no. Mr. thank you very much, Ms. Hughes. Mr. Shook, to the Appellant, ask our question, ask your next question. APPELLANT SHOOK: Police Chief Officer Ferreira, do you believe in any mistakes possible to be made on the PHQ system or the PHQ method of hiring? MR. FERREIRA: If there's any mistakes to be made? APPELLANT SHOOK: Possible mistakes. MR. FERREIRA: Mistakes can be made in any process that you undertake. Page 67 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 APPELLANT SHOOK: We would like you to turn to Comm. Number 20-01.03, section 2, second to the last page. At the bottom of the page, can you read the example paragraph, on the bottom, just above the signature? Second to the last page, section 2. MR. FERREIRA: Second to the last page, section 2. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. Actually, I'm going to object to this because this was clarified by Board Member Ventura, the writing of this was an example of focusing on a specific section without looking at the context of the fact that we're spending time holding an example to—of the process, as if it was overtly applied to you. That was an unnecessary use of our time today— "Example"—this oday"Example"this is what the report looks like and there was a paragraph and now all of a sudden, we had to look at exhibits that were not filed because it was not applicable to you. Next question, if not, let us let the Police Chief have the rest of his time back. APPELLANT SHOOK: No more questions. CHR. NAMAHOE: County? MR. MUKAL (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Chief. MR. FERREIRA: Thank you very much, ma'am, thank you, Board Members, Mr. Shook. MR. MUKAL I have no further witnesses, Madam Chair. CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, thank you. Then I'm going to ask the Appellant to present your, oh MR. FERREIRA: Can I leave? CHR. NAMAHOE: Oh, yes. Thank you, sir. May I ask the Appellant to present your closing argument? APPELLANT SHOOK: In closing, I would like to thank everyone for giving me the time to come here and present the case. I do appreciate the clarification—of finally getting clarification on the point that it was not my background but my background check of reference not background of criminal record, although that was a comment made by one of the officer's here, Officer Grouns. As stated by the attorney to our right, lack of evidenceI wouldI just worry that the only way to get this evidence on being abused and accosted is to illegally put my phone on videotape while I'm in a st while I'm in the class that says if I do that I go to prison or I get locked up. Page 68 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 So, I just want to thank everyone for coming here and I really hope that everything works out fine. Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Shook. MR. MUKAL Madam Chair, just very briefly. I think this process shouldn't be used as trying to find out information as a fishing expedition without any evidence. The evidence in this case is clear that during the process of gathering information about Mr. Shook, the department found that there were issues regarding his suitability for becoming a police officer recruit. The background check uncovered red flags and, as Sergeant Grouns testified, it raised concernsultimately, finding him unsuitable to be a police officer recruit. There were claims that somehow an incident with Officer Reyes was part of it and that his DUI was part of it. But that's simply not the case. And we believe the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Police Department showed that during the background checks, Mr. Shook was simply determined to not be qualified. So, we would ask that the Board find in favor of the Hawaii County Police Department in this matter. CHR. NAMAHOE: I thank you to the Shook's, I thank you to Mr. MukaiMr. Shook, Mr. Shook, and Mr. Mukai the hearing has ended and now we're now going to enter into our deliberations phase. So, at this point, you may be excused from the meeting room. I do want to say one quick thingI thank you for your patience. This is the process. You are afforded that process, and that was important for all of us. It's why we serve. I thank you also for your patience with us. I'm glad you also had opportunity to speak to the people you believed needed to hear what you got to say and answer those questions that you needed to hear answered. With that we are going to go into session—executive session. I'm going to take a motion to—I'll entertain a motion to go into executive session. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, Chillingworth recommends that the Board enter executive session at this time. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. And a second. MS. HUGHES: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Ms. Hughes. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe — 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Page 69 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you very much. RECESS: The Chair called for a recess at 1:10 p.m. to convene executive session. RECONVENE: Open session reconvened at 1:33 p.m. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, I believe we're coming out of executive session now. Everyone online? MS. HUGHES: Yeah, here. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Chillingworth's here. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. VENTURA: Here. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Okay. We're back in session at 1:33. So, thank you very much. After deliberating for the hearing on the appeal by Mr. Reed Shook, I will take a motion—I'll entertain a motion after our deliberation that we—that took place. And I want to thank you very much for coming forward and for taking part of this process. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'd also like to thank Mr. Appellant, Reed Shook, and his dad—Mr. Representative Shook, for the work that they've put in in presenting their case today. On behalf of the Merit Appeals Board, I'd like to move that the appeal of Mr. Appellant, Reed Shook, be denied. CHR. NAMAHOE: Is there a second to this? MR. VENTURA: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Ms. Furman, do we have any comments on that or shall I take the vote. MS. FURMAN: I think you should take the vote first. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, thank you. So, all in favor to move this appeal through denial? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe — 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Ms. Furman? Page 70 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MS. FURMAN: Okay. So, Mr. Shook, the Board has voted to deny your appeal. What happens next is that a written decision will be issued and once you received the written decision which sets forth the Board's reasons for denying your appeal, you do have a statutory right to appeal from that. So, I just wanted to let you know that that's what happens moving forward from here. CHR. NAMAHOE: I want to thank you. Do you have any more comments? APPELLANT SHOOK: How long is the statutory for filing the appeal? CHR. NAMAHOE: You'll move through this process and then keep an eye on the mail. It'll have to still go through final process through us where we sign off on it. And then, once you receive it, then you'll also have next steps on what's available to you. APPELLANT SHOOK: Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Thank you very much. This is your information, every—as you go through your process, this is more information that you have for the next step ahead of you, and I thank you. REP. SHOOK: (Inaudible). CHR. NAMAHOE: And thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time, thank you for standing by your son. And you have a good and safe drive home as your go through the rain. Take care. Aloha. Thank you. Next on the agenda, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. We're going to take two pieces out of order. This was "unfinished business" wait, wait, one second—which is Communication page 4, right. Communication—okay, thank you. So, if we can go to "unfinished business" 7) B) Communication Number 18-02.04. Communication No. 18-02.04, From James E. Halvorson, Deputy Attorney General, Transmitting The Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law (FOF COL) And Order Concerning Communication No. 18-02, Appealing An Employment Action (Discharge During The Fire Recruit Process) By The Fire Department. Based On The Forgoing Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, The Merit Appeals Board Orders The Appeal To Be Dismissed (Board Action Required: Approval Of FOF COL) CHR. NAMAHOE: So, the Board action required is that we approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law. So, that isagain, is that in our binder or no that's here. Sorry, that's here in this—in the blue folder. So, again, 18-02.04—I'll take a moment and then I'll entertain a motion to accept it, to approve it regarding the Walpole file. MS. HUGHES: Do you need a second, Madam Chair? Page 71 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: I need a first, so I'll take—Board Member Hughes, as the acceptance and then I'll need a second. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, moved—second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, so moved by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Ventura? Mr. Chillingworth? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: (Inaudible.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, all in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. And then the next one—thank you. So, we have approved that Fact of Finding Conclusions of Law. We're going to do the same for the next one, Communication 18-03.06. Communication No. 18-03.06, From James E. Halvorson, Deputy Attorney General, Transmitting The Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law (FOF COL) And Order Concerning Communication Nos. 18-03, 19-01, And 19-02, Appealing Employment Actions (Transfer To Another Fire Station) By The Fire Department. Based On The Forgoing Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, The Merit Appeals Board Orders The Appeals To Be Dismissed (Board Action Required: Approval Of FOF COL) CHR. NAMAHOE: Take a moment and I will entertain a motion and then a second. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So moved. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Chillingworth. MR. VENTURA: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Ventura. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Page 72 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you so much. Okay. So, moving down the—moving—Deputy Attorney General Amanda Furman, we thank you for your time today, and we're going to let you go with "happy holidays." You're on mute. MS. FURMAN: Thank you. Happy holidays, everyone. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Thank you, Ms. Furman, same to you. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. VENTURA: Aloha. MS. HUGHES: Aloha. CHR. NAMAHOE: Nice to meet you. Okay. And we have now with us, our own Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto to my left. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Hi, everyone. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Yay, you made it! MS. HUGHES: Aloha. CHR. NAMAHOE: His timing was perfect. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Right. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. All righty. So, here we are now, next on the agenda—we're on to "new business"—Or wait, yeah, pau. Number 6, "new business." New Business (Item 6) FY 2019-2020 Annual Performance Evaluation of the Director of Human Resources (HR): Presentation By The Director Of HR Regarding Department's Goals And Objectives For FY 2019-2020; SurveyMonkey Results For FY 2019-2020; And Memorandum From Waylen L. K Leopoldino, Human Resources Manager, Re The 2019-2020 Recruitment System (NeoGov) Survey Results; Presentation By The Director Of HR Regarding Department's Goals And Objectives For FY 2020-2021; Merit Appeals Board's Evaluation Tool For The Director Of HR For FY 2020-2021; SurveyMonkey Questions For FY 2020-2021 (Executive Session: The Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding The Above Matters, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(A)(2) And 92-5(A)(4), For The Purpose Evaluating An Officer Or Employee Of The County Of Hawaii, Where The Consideration Of Matters Affecting Privacy Will Be Involved And Consulting With The Board's Attorney On Questions And Issues Pertaining Page 73 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 To The Board's Powers, Duties, Privileges, Immunities, And Liabilities. A 2/3 Vote Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting CHR. NAMAHOE: Coming to the dais is Mr. Bill Brilhante. (At this time, Mr. William V. Brilhante, Jr., Director, Human Resources Department, came forward.) MR. BRILHANTE: Good afternoon, Chair—Madam Chair, and Merit Appeals Board Commissioners or Board Members. William Brilhante, Director of Department of Human Resources. I guess this is my part of my annual review, so what I generally do is 1 -just re—go over, review the—it's so weird sitting in this context here. That's why they use the cardboard cutouts. I'll go over my goals and objectives from fiscal year July I't, 2019, through June 30th, of 2020, and then I'll follow that with my goals for this coming fiscal year, July I't, 2020, through June 30th, 2021. So, just to reference back, my goals for this year were to continue the health and safety re- organization with the ultimate goal of developing a department -by -department safety program. We're in the process of doing that. We've successfully created a separate or eighth division within the Department of Human Resources. And it's our Health and Safety Division—Ryan Chong is the division head and Doug McCormick is primarily his assistant there. And then his clerical—we also hired a part-time clerk or person. By "part-time" I mean she helps them—she helps the Safety and Health Division part-time and the rest of the time, she's assigned to her duties of providing clerical support for the HR the other divisions in HR. So, that program is going forward. We oversee numerous different types of training. Our safety training primarily provides Countywide safety training such as, first aid training, CPR training, use of automatic defibrillators, and the like. We provide a regular training schedule now. What we're looking to do is as the department goes forward, as the County moves forward with safety training, one of the areas we're identifying is that several of the departments have their own safety trainers—Public Works has their own, Department of Environmental Management has their own, the Water Supply Department just recently hired their own, and there was a request from Parks and Recreation to create a new position therea safety training coordinator for them. What we're looking to do is to continue to maintain the focus on health and safety. We're looking to consolidate and bring a more unified program—continue that movement towards a unified safety training program with the County. We recently started to have regular meetings with each of the departmental safety officers and they come in and they've been meeting regularly with our safety trainers, our the people in our division. And we're just trying to come up with a singular goals, singular objection—objectives—and just incorporate that into our Page 74 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 regular training. Our opinion is that unless you're addressing the issue, putting the issue about safety out there on a regular basis, it tends to get left behind. We want to make sure that safety is first and foremost in our employees minds as it relates to a lot of the type of work that the County does and I think that's the reason we're trying to be so proactive because we see the correlative effect between prevention and reducing injuries. And the reason that's so important for us is because we've been taking such a big hit with our Work Comp Division and we're hoping that if we can be more proactive on the safety side, that'll cut down the number of injuries and then the result of that will be the County having to pay less claims on the Work Comp side. It all comes from the same bucket. Oftentimes it's not how much goes into the bucket, but it's how much leaks out through the pukas. So what we're trying to do is just ensure that there's not too many pukas. With the pandemic less and less is coming into the bucket and that's out of our control. We only can control what goes out. So, that's one of the ways we're looking to do that. The second goal was to continue to expand the County of Hawaii Supervisory Training Program. It was non-existent until we established these goals about a year -and -a -half ago. Jennifer Sakamoto, who was here earlier assisting Glynis with the hearing, was promoted into our Professional Development position. Since the time she started, we've initiated discussions about establishing a training program. Jenny has been moving forward and she's been really active and successful. We've graduated two classes. Each class consisted of a 12 -month series of trainings. They would meet continuously once or twice a month. It'd be a four-hour—sometimes longer sessions where they would review all the various aspects of being a supervisor, whether it'd be personnel management, whether it'd be interpretation of the CBA, whether it be proper job reviews, and the like. And discrimination, ADA, reasonable accommodation requests—it was aeach session consisted of a series of about 12 classes and we've—with the first session, we had the mayor come to the graduation and he presented the certificates to the first 28 or so attendees or participants. And then, just last week, we just did the second batch of graduates with the certifications. After the first session, we opened the registration for the second session. And we had so much interest that we had to turn away interested managers accordingly. We created another, we scheduled another session for them. So, we should be starting our third session training co- heart—we o- heart we call them pretty soon going forward. So, that's been successful. It's been well- received. And we're looking to expand that program this year under the new Administration. We're currently in discussions with Mitch and his staff, with the mayor, regarding having his department heads and deputies participate in the program. So, that's something that should be coming up very soon. Page 75 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 And then, the third goal was to implement a new Countywide recruitment and examination procedures, and we did that. Previous to initiating this goal, the examination and hiring process was based on, I think, I'm not sure what the specific term was but it was based on a skillset review. So, it was very subjective as to what each recruitment was looking at. What would be desirable traits and the like. So, during our audit, about three years ago, the process for recruitment and examination was scrutinized—and I think it was found to be "less than acceptable" would be the term that I would use. So, what we did was we took that process, we compared it to what the other jurisdictions were doing—City and County of Honolulu, Kauai, Maui—and we created a new type of format, new type of procedures which is based on experience and examination. We went back to administering actual written exams for positions which, historically, our civil service positions like clerical or positions which have general applicability—several departments will use the same type of position. Examples would be like a clerk in Public Works, is a clerk in DEM, or Parks and Rec. So, for those positions, which encompass multiple department usage, we transitioned the initial vetting process to be through the written examination process. So, for these types of positions we went back to administering written exams. And then, for the more, I guess, the term would be "directed position," which are specific to a department—we've incorporated a point system where we use experience—an individual's experience through that gets evaluated and we rate them and we rank them based on the experiences provided. We've instituted that program about six months ago and it has been well received. We rolled it out Countywide. I think the feedback we're getting is it's a system that the expectations are clearly defined, it's transparent, and the results are easy to see. By the results, we can clearly articulate why one candidate is first and another candidate is tenth. It's based on the facts in front of each one and the vetting process is easy to explain. I think what the public appreciates is the fact that it's understandable. Kind of, the smoke and mirrors have been removed and it's clear, and it's out front, and it's visible to them. And the County workers appreciate it when we are doing internal promotions, the feedback we've heard from them is that they appreciate it as well because going forward, they now know what the criteria and what the areas that they can focus on to make their application stronger. And the result is becoming higher—receiving a higher ranking. And I think they appreciate that `cause, again, it's clear expectations and clear deliverables. And so, again, that's another program that we'll continue developing, we'll continue tweaking here and there. But, for the most part, again, we're getting a lot of good feedback and I think the result of that is, hopefully, you will have less MAB hearings based on hiring practices. So, those were last years' goals and objectives. This years' goals, again, there are three of them, and I'll just, again, briefly go through each one. Page 76 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 First goal will be to plan, develop, and implement a standard Countywide job performance review program. And those are called "JPR's"I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with that most of you are. What—unfortunately, right now, I found through my investigation or just looking into the matter is that there's different standards, there's different forms, and there's different criteria that's being used by each of the departments. So, one department's JPR—as you know, the JPR has to be conducted, at least on an annual basis, preferablyoh, yes? CHR. NAMAHOE: Hang on, just for the Board members, Mr. Brilhante was just explaining the purple sheet and he's now going through the green sheet. MR. BRILHANTE: So, going back to what I was discussing, we noticed some departments have JPR's that consisted of seven pages of various questionnaires and the like, where other departments used a one-page report with just four questions. And it seemed like the information that's being gathered and disseminated and used to determine whether an employee is performing their duties and responsibilities to the satisfaction of the employer, to us, or the department head—seemed to be all over the place. It's not uniformed. It's not concise. It's not specific. Again, when dealing with employees, the number one or the most common area of feedback that we get from the employees is that they don't mind the process. They know a regular evaluation is part of the employment process. Again, very similar to with the recruitment and examination situation, I think as long as we're able to clearly articulate what the expectations are and what a department—what a supervisor should be looking for as well as articulate what a employee, the areas that they should be focusing on. I think you, kind of reach a happy median and I think the employees appreciate it. They know what they're supposed to do, they know what the expectations are. And then, when they sit down and they have that evaluation it is—it's there in front of them. Again, by removing the smoke and mirrors and the uncertainty from an employee's perspective, that gives them confidence and it takes away the doubt. And—'cause what you don't I think if you have uncertainty and doubt, an employee will always kind of feel a little hesitation because they don't really know what they are supposed to do to get a better JPR. And so with that, we're in the process of developing a Countywide form. I already started it, the process, I assigned it to my deputy and we're going to go forward from there. And, again, we're looking at other jurisdictions. In this case, we widened our search to not just include the other county jurisdictions, but we're looking at several mainland jurisdictions as well. And we're looking to come up with a program. Once we come up with a program, then what we'll do is we'll initiate discussions with the department heads, with the departmental HR people—and we'll kind of come up with, hopefully, a tool that it's encompassing but, yet, not too detailed. I think if we have a JPR that's seven pages, let's be realistic the small departments who do evaluation of three or four employees, that's not too daunting a task. But when you have a department like Parks and Rec. with over Page 77 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 400 employees, I think a seven -page evaluation is much too burdensome for the HR staff and the supervisors to regularly be performing those evaluations. So, that's goal number 1. Goal 2—is develop and implement a Countywide inclusion and diversity recognition program. That's, kind of, an issue that is somewhat of a hot button topic recently in both Hawaii and the national news. When it comes to discrimination (inaudible) diversity it seems like because we're quote/unquote, "the melting pot"—it seems to be less of a issue here. But you'd be surprised with just how often these type of issues are starting to surface now. We recently conducted an investigation at the West Hawaii Civic Center. An employee there, because they were of Indian by "Indian," I mean by Asian -Indian descent and they felt they were being discriminated against. So, as our working employees become more diversified, I think this issue will continue to increase. Again, this is a situation we would like to address it when it's a weed, as opposed to a giant tree. So, we want to address it. We want to start a program. We want to start the discussion. I've always felt that in my eyes it's always easier to have detailed, in-depth discussions about an issue that is not in the middle of being contested. So, if you can take care of it up front, address it up front, come up with a plan and a program up front, I think at the end of the day, you'll be in a much better position than if you were to wait till this becomes a problem, and then start trying to put out the fires. I've already assigned this task to our ADA coordinator and EOO representative, again, with the Department of HR and I've got her going forward with developing a program. We've already come up with a sample mission, vision, and value statement for our diversity program. And we'll just continue to go forward with the specific values that we want to instill with our employees in the County. So, as that moves forward, I'll be sure to keep you guys posted and updated on that. And then, the final goal is to institute a Countywide employee health education and training program. It'll be incorporating the specific items from our partnership with Blue Zones. Fortunately, the previous Administration supported Blue Zones and the new Administration has been receptive to some of the programs that came out. I think that's great. Some of the departments were really on board with it—the Prosecutor's Office, I think, Corp. Counsel had some Blue Zones people, and R&D, Planning. What we would like to see is, oftentimes, when it comes to Work Comp we're always talking about, "Oh, how do you reduce accidents—how do you reduce accidents?" That's great. I think there's a lot of benefit and value to reducing accidents. But then, the next question is how do we ensure that our employees get the sense and the feeling that we value them? We value their work. And we value what they do. I think the best way to reciprocate that and to show this appreciation is that we start developing programs where we engage and we take positive steps to ensuring that our employees physical health and well-being are being looked out after. We're currently working with Karen Teshima of HMSA. And I'm sure the Chair knows her well. Page 78 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 We engaged with Karen and we're moving forward and we're going to start to incorporate programs that is a give and take from the employer and employee sides. Our employees come in and they sit at a desk for eight hours. That's just not healthy. We just want to incorporate better health practices and to actively engage in and to tell our employees, "Look, we support this. We know it's specific for you. We value you. So, here, let's move forward together and let's incorporate these better health practices into our regular work routine." A third of the day, we are all here together and I think that'll be something that we can engage in and we can effectuate, and I think it'll be something where we'll see the benefits by having healthier employees. Maybe we'll seeI'm speaking for myself—maybe more of our employees will get into better physical shape going forward. And the long-term effects of that is less strain on—less sick leave, less long-term illnesses—and no matter what, thereagain, I hate to say it's dollar and cents thing but it is. `Cause anytime somebody's out on personal leave due to an illness, we're having to backfill the position. We're bringing in another individual—so next thing you know, you're paying two individuals to do the job that you originally hired one person for. So, there's a benefit. There's a financial benefit, there's a personal benefit, and there's a emotional benefit with being in good health. And, of course, it'll just make the County of Hawaii a more attractive place for people to want to work and to work at. So, those are my three goals going forward. Pll keep you regularly updated on how things progress. And I'll be happy to answer questions—entertain any questions that anybody may have regarding that. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, to the Board, it is time for us to go into executive session. I'll entertain a motion—hang on one second, the language for that. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Madam Chair, I can assist. So, the Chair's going to request a motion to go into executive session pursuant to HRS Section 92-4, 92-5(a)(2) and 92-5(a)(4) for the purpose of evaluating an officer/employee of the County where consideration of matters of privacy are involved. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So moved. CHR. NAMAHOE: Moved by Mr. Chillingworth. I need a second. MR. VENTURA: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. Second by Mr. Ventura. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. Page 79 Merit Appeals Board CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. December 16, 2020 MR. YOSHIMOTO: Madam Chair, I just want to confirm—so the participants that we have online now are just Board Members Chillingworth, Ventura, and Hughes, is that correct? CHR. NAMAHOE: That's correct. Hang on, Glynis is going to do an official confirmation. MS. HUGHES: Okay. CHR. NAMAHOE: I think what we have is we two phone numbers and two that are on via Zoom, is that correct? Do I have one of you that's logged in two ways? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: That appears to be correct. I'm on Zoom and it appears that Mr. Ventura is also on Zoom and the other two are on phones. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, but MR. VENTURA: I'm both on the phone and Zoom. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Okay, that explains that. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mystery solved. Thank you so much. MR. YOSHIMOTO: And just want to make sure with staff that the room is locked, so no one can just log in whenever they—that we know. CHR. NAMAHOE: Again, we're doing official confirmations. One second. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. RECESS: The Chair called for a recess at 2:10 p.m. to convene executive session. RECONVENE: Open session reconvened at 2:41 p.m. CHR. NAMAHOE: Now, did we take—we actually moved into this. We took the Director's Report earlier that's correct, right, Mr. Brilhante? Or did you have a director's report to provide us? Page 80 Merit Appeals Board Director's Report (Item 8) MAB Quarterly Reports: July — September 2020 December 16, 2020 MR. BRILHANTE: I have a brief director's report to provide. It's submission of the quarterly reports. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. MR. BRILHANTE: And then just I just want to go over a brief HR staffing update as well as an Administration update. Okay. Okay. With that, as to my quarterly reports, if you look in your binder and you go to the last yellow tab and it's entitled, "MAB Quarterly Reports — July through September 2020"—and we—you get each of my division reports in that—in there. I'll let you review those reports on your own. I don't have to go through them. Basically, they're just the recitation of the goals and the type of work that we've continual to do—we continue to do from a divisional standpoint. So, each division head has submitted a report on just representing the type of work that they've been doing for the last three months. So, if anybody has questions regarding that, I can address them specifically. HR Staffing Update MR. BRILHANTE: What I really wanted to touch upon, though, is the HR staffing update. Within the last month or so, with the change in Administration the Mayoral Administration we've also had a lot of changes in our department as well. At the beginning of December, I appointed a new Deputy, Waylen Leopoldino. Due to budget constraints and the like, one of the things that I did last year was that I froze several positions in my office. I did not hire several vacant positions in my office so that I could use the salary and wages from those positions to address other key areas in my office, where I think we had some shortcomings. So, one of the positions I did not fill for a year was my deputy position and I used the salary from that position to reallocate my Workers Comp Division so that I could create a separation between Work Comp and Health and Safety. So, now we have eight divisions. I separated Work Comp, I brought in a manager—division manager just to address the work comp issues and then I have a separate manager for Health and Safety. So, now going forward, we got through the budget cycle and we are able to use the savings with salary and wages to appoint a new deputy. What I did was, I reviewed outside applicants, I also reviewed internal applicants, and I concluded that Waylen Leopoldino was the most qualified individual to be able to serve in the capacity of a deputy. In my opinion, I see the position of a deputy as not only just a secondary resource for me as somebody that can help provide input and advice and direction. Also, I see it also as a Page 81 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 steppingstone for future succession planning with our department and that was one of the criteria or elements that I felt that Waylen strongly possess is the ability to one day be the right person to continue on this position—continue with HR and, hopefully, be the director of the department going forward. Several factors that stood out were his loyalty, knowledge base, and work experience. He has a master's degree in human resources, not only has he worked with the County of Hawaii for a number of years, he also challenged himself by going up to San Francisco and working for the City and County of San Francisco in their HR department. I was fortunate enough that I was able to entice him to come back home and be the director of our recruitment and examination division. Local boy, family tiesso, I don't think he's going anywhere soon. So, I hope we can continue to utilize him in this capacity. The second division head, which I hired maybe about three months ago was Tasha Hoggatt. She is our ADA/EOO division head and she comes to us from Seattle. A number of years in Seattle in their EOO office up there. She has a wealth of experience and knowledge and we were really fortunate to be able to hire somebody with her ability. I think she's already proved herself with being available and providing input and advice with numerous issues that have already surfaced. With the change of Administration, one of the deputy department heads—Department of Environmental Management, Diane Noda, was serving as their Deputy Director, had return rights to her position back with us. And she's our Labor and Relations Division manager. So with the change in Administration she exercised her return rights and as of December 7 at 12:01 she came back to our office. Accordingly, by operation by our procedures and civil service procedures, she went back to her old position. And so, she is—she went back to being the Labor Relations Division head. That created a situation where Lee Botelho was serving as our temporary Labor Relations manager and so she got bumped, so she was going to have to go back to her Program—Fiscal Program manager position. But, fortunately, when I promoted Waylen, that created a vacancy for our Recruitment and Examination Division. So, I ran an internal recruitment within our office. We had two candidates. We interviewed, we empaneled the interview committee, we went through the whole formal process—and last week Friday, we offered the position of our Recruitment and Examination manager to Lee Botelho. So, effective today, December 16, Lee will start in her new position as our Recruitment and Examination manager. I think we were fortunate the way that worked out. Lee brings so much knowledge from her experience as Labor Relations Manager and then she's able to take it over. She has such a strong grasp of the collective bargaining and all the promotional requirements associated with collective bargaining and what's articulated in the CBA agreements with all the various unions. So, to me, it's going to be a easy transition for her. One of the things I really like about Lee is she's very detail oriented. She is also strong in her commitment to fairness. And when I look at recruitment, that's one of the traits that I think is very important with being the manager for that division. Lee's able to ensure fairness and her attention to detail will serve her well in this position. Page 82 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 We saw that today, quite honestly, with our hearing earlier. I think I was very impressed with the communication between Sergeant Grouns and the police chief as it related to the specific items that were raised concurring how the Police Department vetted this particular application. And, to me, that's the process. You know what my takeaway from today's hearing was that's the process and it worked properly. And so, going forward I'd like to see that with our recruitment and examination, that's what we do and that's what we focus on. And I think as long as we're able to do that, I think Lee is a good person for that position with the qualities and the traits she brings. So, that's my staffing update. New Administration Update MR. BRILHANTE: As far as the new Administration, Mayor Roth took office on December 7. He appointed Lee Lord to be his Managing Director. Lee—he specifically assigned Lee to be responsible for supervision of all the department heads and deputies. So, with that. We've already had regular meetings with Lee. We sat down with Lee yesterday, and Waylen and myself, and we had a long one-on-one meeting with him. And we set forth just procedures for hiring practices, we amended some of our forms, we presented those amended forms to him regarding authorization to move forward with request to hire, authorization with initiating recruitments. Lee has a long history of working as the Business Manager for the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. So, he has a lot of HR experience in that capacity and it's, kind of, a breath of fresh air to have him working—hand-in-hand with him going forward because he understands. He understands the processes, he understands the roadblocks, and he has a good working knowledge of what the expectations are going forward. So, I think it's going to be refreshing. Again, everybody has a HR but it's kind of like oftentimes it's like the area that you kind of put on the back burner as much as you can until the kitchen is on fire. And it's coming from that back burner—and then you have to deal with it. But I think it's refreshing. I find it, personally, refreshing that Lee comes to the table and he's had those experiences and his understanding, I think, will be very beneficial to us moving forward. One of the things people don't realize is that our HR staff is provided very short notice to implement and input all the administrative changes that are made at the end of the term. So, all of the appointed employees that were in Mayor Kim's Administration, their term ended with the mayor, co -terminus with the mayor at 12 p.m. on the 7t'. Accordingly, all the new agency appointments. All the new administrative appointments with Mayor Roth started at 12:01 p.m. on the same day—December 7t'. So we, basically, had a two-day window to effectuate all the documents they're called Form 13's to ensure that all the Form 13's were filled out for all the outgoing personnel, 70 - something people, and all the Form 13's for the newly appointed personnel, 70 -something Page 83 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 people, were properly put in place. Because if we didn't do it timely, the new appointees wouldn't get their first paycheck. And that was something we didn't want to be responsible for. My staff, my Transactions staff, put a lot of time in that. They worked through the weekend. Once names started coming through from the Administration regarding appointees, they worked a full day Saturday, full day Sunday, they worked till ten o'clock some evenings just to make sure that everything was properly done and properly documented and properly filed and inputted into the system. So, we were successful in that. I just kind of would want to make sure that I give them some recognition for the hard work that they did. They're the unsung heroes. I think come December 30'h and everybody gets a paycheck or even yesterday. But, anyway. We continue to work with the new Administration. I continue to serve as the Director for HR. I continue to serve on the new Mayor's Rule Committee meeting for COVID- 19 response as well as I continue to serve as one his senior policy members. So, that means I'll stillmy involvement with the COVID response going forward will still be there. We still meet on Monday, Wednesday, Friday up at Civil Defense. We have a ten o'clock meeting for the State—Statewide Emergency Management Center. And then, we have a Senior Policy meeting with the Governor every Monday and Wednesday. So, I'll continue doing that. CHR. NAMAHOE: Do you take a question on that? MR. BRILHANTE: Sure. CHR. NAMAHOE: So, have you heard any word about when that vaccine will be made available in our County for—and what the schedule looks like right now? MR. BRILHANTE: I just had that discussion with the Civil Defense Administrator, Talmadge Magno, yesterday at a briefing meeting. And he said that it's currently scheduled to be in at the beginning of next week here on the Big Island. I think one batch is going to be assigned to the Kona Hospital and one batch will be assigned to Hilo Hospital. And the first stage, I guess they're going to administer the vaccines in stages. So, the first stage is for the hospital workers and immediate first responders. And then they'll gravitate to the general public, I think, is Stage 4. So, I think the second stage is going to be the individuals in care homes. And then, so it just kind of gravitate from that. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. MR. BRILHANTE: You're welcome. And so, that's really the end of my director's report. know it's late in the afternoon—wow, it's after three. Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody may have. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, Bill, in the last week there's been a change in Administration in the County of Hawaii then? MR. BRILHANTE: Yes, there has. It's been—it's interesting. Page 84 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 MR. CHILLINGWORTH: And are you the only agency director that has not been affected by the changeover or are there others? MR. BRILHANTE: There's four departments that come under commissions. So, it's police, fire, myself, and liquor. So, there're—well, water is semi -autonomous so they do their own thing. Yeah, but water would be, yeah, another one. Yeah. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Wow. And am I the only one that's been ignorant of the fact that the County Administration changed in the last week? I guess so. MR. BRILHANTE: I operate under the premise of no news is good news. So... MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, true. CHR. NAMAHOE: Any other comments? MS. HUGHES: None for me. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. So, barring that—so— MR. hat so MR. YOSHIMOTO: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) CHR. NAMAHOE: Yes. So, if I can entertain a motion to accept the quarterly report from July through September 20th (sic.)excuse me, I take that back. For the entirety of the director's report, if I can take a motion to accept that into record at this time? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So moved. CHR. NAMAHOE: Mr. Chillingworth. MS. HUGHES: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Second, Ms. Hughes. All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe – 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, thank you. So, we're now at schedule our next meeting dateI know that we do haveoh, wait, one more thing—two more things. I'm sorry. MR. YOSHIMOTO: (Inaudible. His microphone was not on.) Page 85 Merit Appeals Board Unfinished Business (Item 7) December 16, 2020 Election Of Merit Appeals Board Chair And Vice -Chair For Calendar Year 2021 (Note: At Its Meeting Held On February 26, 2020, The Board Postponed This Matter (The Election Was For The Current Year 2020)) CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay. So, excuse me. I have two more things to do, which is the unfinished business is A7) A)—we postponed this now ten months. So, we do need to elect a Board Chair and Vice -Chair for Calendar Year 2021. So, my term ends on December 31" this year. I am able to sit on for one more quarter until March 31st. Hopefully, with the new mayor he'll fill the remaining pukes, which is right now for Mitch Tam, his seat. But we need to elect amongst you three a chair and a vice -chair. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, I've got health problems and I'm going to need to submit a resignation to the mayor. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Mr. Chillingworth, and our prayers are with you and for MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Thank you. CHR. NAMAHOE: a good recovery. With that having been said, Mr. Ventura and Ms. Hughes, we are now MS. HUGHES: I apologize that I'm not volunteering, `cause I usually am one to do that. But I'm chairing another board that I—that we have a capital campaign goal to raise $3 million in the next year. So, I'm heavily active in Leadership and I don't feel that I'm equipped to take on another leadership role on another board. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Ms. Hughes, for that. Mr. Ventura? MR. VENTURA: Like Ms. Hughes, I do not feel I'm equipped, however, I do not have theI do not have as good an out as Mr. Chillingworth or Ms. Hughes. I have things to do but I would be okay if I would need to be the chairman by default. CHR. NAMAHOE: I second that. So hereso, I just want to share with you what I'm understanding. Our Board requires three for quorum, a complete board comprises a membership of five. Mr. Chillingworth and I will be sunsetting within the next quarter. I'll be here till the end of March. Mr. Chillingworth probably will be here through the holidays. Is that correct, sir? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: That's true. CHR. NAMAHOE: This is going to—we're going to need to take this up with Mayor Roth as soon as possible because he's going to need to nominate two people and quickly. This is one of those boards that cannot remain without membership. It cannot go under quorum. Page 86 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 So, I'm going to suggest—not to say that we're going to table it again—we do have a meeting on the schedule for February 10 and we're going to hear—at least there'll be another hearing at that time. We need to make sureI mean, if Mr. Chillingworth is not there, Mr. Ventura and Ms. Hughes we're going to need the both of you at that day. It may feel similar like to today. And then, at that time, we need to make sure between now and then that both the mayor's office and the county council have taken up the additions the necessary additions. MR. BRILHANTE: With that, I'll send a communication to the mayor's office explaining the situation and requesting that attention be placed on identifying three more board members, moving forward because of the importance of this commission. Hopefully, that'll get some traction. CHR. NAMAHOE: Well, we'll need two because we'll have Tam's space and we'll have Chillingworth unless, Ms. Hughes, are you saying that you're stepping down the Board? She didn't say that? Oh, no MS. HUGHES: Oh, no. CHR. NAMAHOE: Yeah. MS. HUGHES: I'm just not volunteering to be a chair. CHR. NAMAHOE: No, I sorry. I'm real good at science but, right now, I can't count fingers. Me, I'm the one exiting the Boardmyself, Mr. Chillingworth, and then Mr. Tam's space— three of us. Excuse me. Okay, is that fine with all of you where we are with that business? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Right. MR. YOSHIMOTO: So, Madam Chair, to be clear then, you're going to continue to serve as Chair in the meantime? You're deferring the vote on this election for chair and vice -chair for 2021? CHR. NAMAHOE: I'll entertain a motion that we defer the vote. MR. CHILLINGWORTH: So, moved. CHR. NAMAHOE: Second? I need a second? MS. HUGHES: Second. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you, Ms. Hughes. All right. All in favor? Page 87 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe — 4 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Okay, thank you. That's where we're at in the election. And then we have to take we have to review the executive session minutes from February 26h. Review of Executive Session Minutes February 26, 2020 (Executive Session The Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding The Above Matters, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(A)(2) And 92-5(A)(4), For The Purpose Evaluating An Officer Or Employee Of The County Of Hawaii, Where The Consideration Of Matters Affecting Privacy Will Be Involved And Consulting With The Board's Attorney On Questions And Issues Pertaining To The Board's Powers, Duties, Privileges, Immunities, And Liabilities. A 2/3 Vote Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting) MR. YOSHIMOTO: That's correct, Madam Chair. So, if the Board members have already reviewed them and have no comments or no discussion needed, then we can just vote on it. If you do need to go into executive session, we would need another motion. CHR. NAMAHOE: I'll entertain a motion that we accept the executive session minutes from February 26, 2020? MR. CHILLINGWORTH: Madam Chair, I've had an opportunity to review them they're fairly extensive but I did have an opportunity to review. And I move to approve. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. And then the second was Mr. Ventura? MR. VENTURA: Yes. CHR. NAMAHOE: All in favor? AYES: Board Members Chillingworth, Hughes, Ventura, and Chair Namahoe — 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. EXCUSED: None. CHR. NAMAHOE: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so now although it says our final business for the day is to schedule the next meeting date, I think that since we are meeting on February 10th, we don't need to do that. Schedule Next Meeting Date (Item 9) Page 88 Merit Appeals Board December 16, 2020 CHR. NAMAHOE: So, again, but for all of our edification, our next meeting is February 10th, here at the County Chambers—County Council Chambers, at 10 a.m. Adjournment(Item 10) CHR. NAMAHOE: All right, with that it is now ten after three and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, e-P1114L il�1 Glynis Yamad., Secretary-Reporter APPROVED: _C Luahiwa Namahoe, Chair Merit Appeals Board Page 89