2021-01-07 Windward Exh D (Discussion recusal of a commissioner)

Home

idea, I like how it's written now, and I favor any type of tweaking that anybody would do to it, but we need a layer of rules for us Commissioners. I've said in the past too we're here and we are volunteering, everybody around us is getting paid everybody is getting paid except for us five on this call. So, we are volunteering, and we need a layer another layer to protect us and I support it. HALL: Alright, sounds good I don't foresee I guess Jeff could speak to when a rule change would come up, I don't foresee it happening anytime in the immediate future but, I'll let Jeff speak to that. DARROW: Thank you Malia. At the Leeward Planning Commission, they asked after the training for staff to work on a rule and bring it before to the Commissions to be able to add into the Planning Commission's rules. We will put together a rule and bring it forward what we will probably do is present it to the Commission's first just to review to make sure that they agree with it or if they have any concerns or suggested changes then when we come together as a Joint Commission, we can bring that forth. It would most likely be housed in the general rule which is Planning Commission Rule One. There are other changes that we are looking at shortly to the Planning Commission Rules and we can incorporate this particular change with those changes as well. One of the changes we are looking at is based on the recent Bill 20-60 which had to do with coastal zone management and SMA and shoreline setbacks so based on that change in law we are incorporating those changes into our rules and we'll be bringing that before the Commission. The one thing that I did want to mention that I mentioned at Leeward is the question why is this coming before us, we've never had an issue like this and I would agree in all the years I've been doing this I've never seen an issue come up comparably 99.9 percent of the time Commissioners are very sensitive to their connections outside of the Commission and if there's any type of conflict or perceived conflict they want to make it known and they want to ask their fellow Commissioners if they feel they need to be recused or if they may feel themselves it is a clear conflict I'm going to recuse myself from this application. But again, there need to be that clarity that if there is a perceived conflict or conflict and that particular Commissioner is not making that known or agreeing to recuse that there is a process available to be able to address that so that's what the rule is for. CLARKSON: I would like to ask that there be some guidelines also promulgated along with the rule that covers what kinds of conflicts, what kinds of evidence of bias or prejudice Commissioners should consider if an application for disqualification comes before the Commission. Because I think we need to have some pretty clear guidelines ahead of time, so we aren't thrashing it out just in the context of an ongoing application for disqualification. DARROW: Okay, we'll try to address that and put something together I think what we defer to is just what Malia had brought up is the definition of bias and prejudice and we have to look at that and make that determination. But we'll try to come up with some examples and guidelines on that. 4 EXHIBIT D