|
Merit Appeals Board March 10, 2022
<br />"Appellee") Witness And Exhibit List; Certificate Of Service; And Communication No. 21-
<br />04.03, Received October 15, 2021, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit No. 11; And
<br />Communication No. 21-04.04, Received October 15, 2021, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit
<br />No. 12 (Note: The Aforementioned Communications Were Listed On The Merit Appeals
<br />Board Agenda Dated October 29, 2021); And Communication No. 21-04.05, Received
<br />October 25, 2021, Regarding Appellant's Amended Witness List; And Communication No.
<br />21-04.06, Received October 29, 2021, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit 13; And (Note: The
<br />Aforementioned Communications Were Presented/Circulated At The Meeting On October 29,
<br />2021.) Communication No. 21-04.07, Received November 9, 2021, Regarding Appellee's
<br />Supplemental Witness List; Certificate Of Service (Note: The Aforementioned
<br />Communication Was Listed On The Merit Appeals Board Agenda Dated November 19, 2021);
<br />And Communication No. 21-04.08, Received November 18, 2021, Regarding Appellant's
<br />Exhibit No. 14; And Communication No. 21-04.09, Received November 18, 2021, Regarding
<br />Appellant's Exhibit No. 15; And Communication No. 21-04.10, Received November 18,
<br />2021, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit No. 16 (Note: The Aforementioned Communications
<br />Were Presented/Circulated At The Meeting On November 19, 2021). Executive Session: The
<br />Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding
<br />The Above Matter, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(2) And 92-5(a)(4), For The
<br />Purpose Evaluating An Officer Or Employee Of The County Of Hawaii, Where The
<br />Consideration Of Matters Affecting Privacy Will Be Involved And Consulting With The
<br />Board's Attorney On Questions And Issues Pertaining To The Board's Powers, Duties,
<br />Privileges, Immunities, And Liabilities. A 2/3 Vote Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is
<br />Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting
<br />ACTING CHR. VENTURA: Okay. I see. Okay. So we will read the recommendation and, if it
<br />is the Board's pleasure, they will provide a motion and we'll vote on the motion.
<br />Okay. So, the Board's recommendation is: The Board has concerns that the Hawaii Human
<br />Resources Department, HHRD, may have too narrowly construed the term "related" in
<br />evaluating whether Appellant graduated from an accredited college or university with a
<br />baccalaureate degree in urban planning, geography, architecture, engineering, political science,
<br />sociology, economics, public administration, or a related field.
<br />The Board is going to remand the recruitment back to HHRD for HHRD to conduct a more
<br />thorough review of the Appellant's application. Conducting that review, HHRD should review
<br />the documentation and exhibits submitted during HHRD's Administrative Review of her
<br />application during this appeal, confer with experts in the area of dance, consider coursework that
<br />demonstrates knowledge, skills and abilities that include critical thinking, reading
<br />comprehension, oral comprehension, oral expression, written comprehension, to determine
<br />whether or not Appellant meets the minimum qualification requirement of graduation from an
<br />accredited college or university with a baccalaureate in urban planning, geography, architecture,
<br />engineering, political science, sociology, economics, public administration, or a related field.
<br />That is the recommendation. Is there a motion from the Board to concur with recommendation?
<br />Page 6
<br />
|