Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-30 Merit Appeals Board MinutesREGULAR SESSION Merit Appeals Board Hilo Council Chambers Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street, First Floor, Room 1401 Hilo, Hawaii January 30, 2025 (Thursday) Call to Order (Item 1) The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaii, was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by Chair Gabriella M. Cabanas, at the Hilo Council Chambers, Hawaii County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, First Floor, Room 1401, Hilo, Hawaii, on Thursday, January 30, 2025. Roll Call — Present Ms. Gabriella M. Cabanas, Chair Ms. Suzi Bond, Vice -Chair Ms. Gay Mathews, Member Also Present Mr. J Yoshimoto, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel Mr. James E. Halvorson, Deputy Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General (via Zoom) Ms. Sherilyn K. Tavares, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel Mr. Ted. H. S. Hong, Esquire, Attorney at Law Mr. Jonah Kaye, Water Safety Officer II, Fire Department Mr. John Kaye, Public Member Mr. Darwin Okinaka, Assistant Chief, Fire Department Ms. Glynis Yamada, Secretary -Reporter, Human Resources Department Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 Call to Order (Item 1) CHR. CABANAS: Okay, good morning, everyone. It is January 30, 2025, Thursday, at 9:01 a.m. I call the regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board to order, and we have quorum today with three of our Board members present. I'm Gabriella Cabanas, Chair of the Merit Appeals Board. And sitting alongside me to my left is our Vice -Chair, Ms. Suzi Bond. MS. BOND: Good morning. CHR. CABANAS: And to my far left is Ms. Gay Mathews. MS. MATHEWS: Good morning. CHR. CABANAS: Good morning. To my immediate right is our Assistant Corporation Counsel, Mr. J Yoshimoto. MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good morning, everyone. CHR. CABANAS: Good morning. And seated in the back of our Board members, is Ms. Glynis Yamada, our Secretary -Reporter. MS. YAMADA: Good morning. CHR. CABANAS: Appearing via Zoom is Mr. James Halvorson, from the Office of the Attorney General. He is the Legal Counsel for the Board when we conduct our hearing this morning. Good morning, Jim. Okay. And then, here, in the gallery MR. HALVORON: Yeah, good morning. I had to un-mute. CHR. CABANAS: Yes, hi. No problem. Glad you're alive and well. MR. HALVORSON: Thank you. CHR. CABANAS: Anyone else appearing via Zoom? No? Okay. Appearing in the Gallery is Ms. Sherilyn Tavares, representing the County of Hawaii. MS. TAVARES: Good morning. CHR. CABANAS: Good morning. She is with the Office of the Corporation Counsel. We also have Mr. Ted Hong, Esquire, and his client, Mr. Jonah Kaye, from the Hawaii Fire Department. MR. HONG: Good morning. Page 2 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Good morning. And seated in the back is Assistant Fire Chief Darwin OkinawaOkinaka—from the Hawaii Fire Department. Good morning, Darwin. MR. OKINAKA: Good morning. 9:00 A.M.: HEARING RE COMMUNICATION NO. 24-14 (Continued) Communication No. 24-14, Received On September 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of Appellant, Appealing The Following Action By The County Of Hawai`i's Fire Department: Recruitment And Examination; And Communication No. 24-14.01, Received On October 28, 2024, From Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Supplemental Exhibit "3" In Support Of Appellant's Appeal To The Merit Appeals Board Submitted On September 12, 2024; Exhibits "3"; And Communication No. 24-14.02, Received On October 29, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Statement Of No Opposition To The Jurisdiction Of The Merit Appeals Board To Hear This Appeal; And Communication No. 24-14-03, Received On December 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Witness List; And Communication No. 24-14.04, Received On December 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit List; And Communication No. 24-14.05, Received On December 12, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Witness List; And Communication No. 24-14.06, Received On December 12, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Exhibit List; Exhibits "A" — "D"; and Communication No. 24-14.07, Received On January 23, 2025, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Memorandum Of Law Concerning Recruitment (Executive Session: The Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding The Above Matter, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(2) And 92-5(a)(4), For The Purpose Of 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 Of The Members Present Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting) CHR. CABANAS: So, this morning, we are continuing our hearing that we started from January 16, 2025. The Deputy Attorney General, Jim Halvorson, will be participating via Zoom. Both parties are present and introductions were made. This hearing is on the appeal filed by Mr. Jonah Kaye. The issue in this case has been identified as: Did the Employer, the Fire Department of the County of Hawaii, violate any statutes, regulations, rules, or personnel policies regarding the following actions —Recruitment and Examination. And if the answer to the above is "yes" then what remedy can be awarded by the Merit Appeals Board. Page 3 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 At the Merit Appeals Board meeting held on January 16, 2025, the Board heard this matter at 9:52 a.m., and it was postponed at 11:51 a.m. due to lack of quorum, and continued to today. At that hearing, testimony was completed by Mr. Johah Kaye, the Appellant's witness; and by Ms. Sommer Tokihiro, the Appellee's witness. I believe the Appellee, the County of Hawaii, will be calling forward their next witness, Assistant Fire Chief Darwin Okinaka. MS. TAVARES: That is correct. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Ms. Tavares. I need to read the following —strict rules of evidence will not apply in this hearing. However, the Board requests that all parties confine themselves to the matters connected with today's hearing and the issue before the Board. If witnesses are 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. Are there any questions at this time? Before we begin, I need to have presented full disclosure on my part as the Chair. In terms of the work that I've conducted with the Department of Human Resources while I was working as the HR Manager, I conducted training for which the Fire Chief, Kazuo Todd; and the Assistant Fire Chief, Darwin Okinaka, attended the training that I presented. Also, I have worked with Mr. Ted Hong when he was the Assistant Corporation Counsel for the County back in the `90's—and Ted and I worked together to present cases before the Merit Appeals Board in which I represented the Department of Human Resources at appeal hearings. The last thing I need to disclose is that my son is a Fire Equipment Operator with the Hawaii Fire Department. He has been employed with the department for the last 10 years and he works on the fire operation side not the ocean safety side. And the last thing the very last thing I need to disclose is that the Assistant Fire Chief, Darwin Okinaka, and I are blood related —so his grandmother and my mother are first cousinswhich, kind of, makes Darwin and I, like, second cousins once removed. Having stated all of that, however, as I stated at the January hearing —were —are there any concerns or questions —and no one at that time had any objections to me continuing on. And I do believe that I can be and will be objective in the hearing. So, thank you. MR. HONG: Still, no objections. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Mr. Hong. Ms. Tavares? Page 4 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: Same from the County, no objection. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate your confidence. Thank you. Also, who just walked in —good morning, Mr. Kaye —is Mr. John Kaye, who will sit in, in the hearing —and the hearing is open as Mr. Jonah Kaye indicated at the January meeting. So, if not, if there are no other questions at this time, we shall continue the hearing. And I'm going to yeah, I have a little guide hereso, Ms. Tavares, you have another witness? MS. TAVARES: Yes, I do. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. And your witness is? MS. TAVARES: Assistant Chief Darwin Okinaka. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, Chief Okinaka, could you come up to the counter here? And Glynis will get you squared away. (At this time, Mr. Darwin Okinaka, Assistant Fire Chief, Fire Department, came forward.) CHR. CABANAS: Oh, yeah, sure —is that okay —we'll take a brief pause. MS. TAVARES: Seems like he's going to have to read anything but, if you feel more comfortable having your glasses, we can wait. CHR. CABANAS: Yeah, if you need to look at an exhibit, that sort —yeah. Okay, we'll take a brief pause at 9:09 a.m.brief pause for a few minutes. Oh, don't run, just walk (At this time, Mr. Okinaka left the meeting room to retrieve his reading classes from his office upstairs.) RECESS: The Chair called for a recess at 9:09 a.m. RECONVENE: The meeting reconvened at 9:11 a.m. in open session. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, it is 9:11 a.m. and we are reconvening our hearing. So, Assistant Fire Chief Darwin Okinaka, I need to swear you in. If you could raise your right hand— MR.OKINAKA: (Inaudible.) CHR. CABANAS: No, well, if you want to stand. Okay. MR.OKINAKA: (Inaudible.) Page 5 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. OKINAKA: I do. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. You may be seated —and Ms. Tavares? MS. TAVARES: Thank you. Good morning, Assistant Chief Okinaka. MR. OKINAKA: Good morning. MS. TAVARES: Thank you for being here. For purposes of context, I'm just going to draw your attention to the recruitment for Job Number 2024-00009-I1), which is an internal recruitment within the Fire Department for the Water Safety Officer III position. Now, we are here because an appeal was filed by Mr. Kaye for, essentially, the results of what transpired after this recruitment. One of the remedies he's seeking is for all derogatory and disciplinary material to be removed from his personnel file. So, my question for you is, are there any derogatory remarks in Mr. Kaye's file related to this recruitment? MR. OKINAKA: There is no derogatory information as far as I'm concerned. MS. TAVARES: Is this information verifiable? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MS. TAVARES: How? MR. OKINAKA: Any employee is able to contact our HR office and request to review their personnel file. MS. TAVARES: Okay. Regarding this WSO III position, to your knowledge, was this position for a promotion within the department? MR. OKINAKA: Correct, it was for a promotion. MS. TAVARES: And is the department planning on recruiting again for the WSO III position? MR. OKINAKA: Yes, we are. MS. TAVARES: When? Page 6 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: I don't have a timeline. There's a few things that transpired because of the results of what occurred, which we are adjusting in our policies and procedures. So, once those that is completed, we'll proceed. MS. TAVARES: And is this something that is ongoing negotiations with HGEA MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MS. TAVARES: the Union that represents the WSO Water Safety Officers, essentially? MR. OKINAKA: Correct HGEA and also with the Department of Human Resources, collectively. MS. TAVARES: Thank you. I have no further questions for Assistant Chief Okinaka. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Ms. Tavares. Mr. Hong? MR. HONG: Thank you. Good morning, Chief. MR. OKINAKA: Good morning. MR. HONG: You participated in Jonah's recruitment, correct? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: And isn't it correct that Human Resources Department decided to cancel the recruitment because of the Step II grievance, not the Fire Department? MR. OKINAKA: I believe so —yes. MR. HONG: Would it be fair to say that in terms of the Fire Department, they felt that whatever actions that were taken regarding this recruitment, were correct before the grievance was filed? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: How many wereI want to talk about the recruitment. How many were on the list of eligibles total? MR. OKINAKA: I don't have that exact number off the top of my head. I'd like to say upwards of 10 candidates, possibly, give or take. MR. HONG: Okay, how about 14 or 16? MR. OKINAKA: Possibly. Page 7 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: And the list of recur —eligibles for recruitment —that was certified or handed to you or given to you by HR? MR. OKINAKA: Our Internal HR, correct. MR. HONG: Okay. And that meant that the Fire Department could select from the people on the list, right. MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: And isn't it true that Jonah was first person on the list of all the eligibles? MR. OKINAKA: As far as eligibles, I cannot verify that. What we do —we conduct the recruitment and then score the recruitment, right —and then there's a final standings, the rankings —and, gosh, I can't recall at this point who was Number one, but Jonah was definitely one of the top candidates. MR. HONG: Okay. Do you know whether the other three candidates ranked lower than Jonah? MR. OKINAKA: A few of them did. I'm not sure if all of them. Like I said, I cannot recall exactly who was Number one at this time. Sorry. MR. HONG: Okay. And then, in terms of the grievant, that they talked about —do you know who that is? MS. TAVARES: Objection —relevance. MR. HONG: I'm going into the credibility of the witness. CHR. CABANAS: I believe that information is confidential, at this time. So, if you could MR. HONG: I'm not going to ask his name. I just want to know if he knows who the guy is? CHR. CABANAS: If the Assistant Fire Chief knows who it is? MR. HONG: Yes, who the grievant? CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Tavares? MS. TAVARES: I'm objecting as the matters related to the grievance are confidential. If Mr. Hong is seeking a "yes" or "no" answer and nothing more, then Assistant Chief Okinaka can answer that question. But I am going to object to going into any details about the grievance. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, I understand. Page 8 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: The problem we have is, I contend that this is actually a due process violation. This is not TCBY where it's all the pleasure, none of the guilt. They can't hide behind they can't raise a grievance as the reason why my client lost his position and then say, "Oh, by the way, you can't know anything about the grievance." We're entitled to actually go into some of that because they raised it as their reason for cancelling the recruitment. Otherwise, we are handcuffed. We can't —we're handcuffed because —or prejudiced because we can't actually look into what happened and why it happened. CHR. CABANAS: Well, anytime you have a settlement —that's, as you know, Mr. Hong that's the final decision. And so, I'm going to ask Mr. Halvorson for guidance at this point. Jim, can you interject, please, for the Board? MR. HALVORSON: Yeah. No, I understand Mr. Hong's objection and I think he's entitled to know if the Assistant Fire Chief knows who the grievant is, but I don't think that the identity of the grievant should be disclosed. CHR. CABANAS: Right. Okay. All right, Mr. Hong, you may proceed. MR. HONG: Thank you. So, Chief, you know who the grievant is, right? MR. OKINAKA: Yes, I do. MR. HONG: Do you socialize with him at all? MS. TAVARES: Objection. This is irrelevant. MR. HONG: Actually, it's not irrelevant. It goes directly to the reason why you take the Number one guy on the list of eligibles, and you all of a sudden throw it all out for somebody who scored probably in the bottom of the list. CHR. CABANAS: From what we have read, what the Board has read, the decision to cancel the recruitment was Human Resources decision, not the Hawaii Fire Department's decision. MR. HONG: Okay, I withdraw the question. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. HONG: And I'll move on to a new question. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. HONG: Fair to say that the grievant's ranking was the lowest of the list of eligion the list of eligibles? Page 9 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: Again, I'm going to object. As Mr. Hong is getting into the substance of the grievance, which is not relevant. HRS 76-14(c)(1) requires MAB not to act and to defer authority when there are other the jurisdiction for a res basically, resolution is conferred onto another body. The grievance procedure was used in this matter and that is a fact. And the details of it is not to be litigated here before MAB because MAB does not have jurisdiction over the grievance process. The result of that grievance and the remedy that was reached, is what is being appealed here. But, regardless, MAB does not have any authority to make a decision of whether or not that grievance process was legitimate in any way or that it violated any rules. As Director Tokihiro testified, the basis of the grievance was non -selection for a promotion as a result of the violation of the CBA. And that's where it ends. The details of it, as Assistant Chief Okinaka testified, it wasn't HFD's decision. It was through the grievance procedure. And so, trying to find out what happened and somehow make an argument related to the Fire Department about the grievance, is improper before this Board. MR. HONG: I'm going to the issue of recruitment. We're going back to recruitment. We're going back to the list of eligibles. Imy simple question is, I don't know how that relates to the objection. My question was simply, "Hey, the grievant was the lowest on the list of eligibles." CHR. CABANAS: Well, I think more information or different information needs to be explained about that list of eligibles. MR. HONG: Okay. CHR. CABANAS: And so, I think you need to think about your line of questioning, Mr. Hong. MR. HONG: Well CHR. CABANAS: Because we cannot go into the settlement. Yes, it does raise questions but we can't really go there about the settlement. MR. HONG: If you lookI'm not asking about the settlement. I'm just —we're talking about recruitment. They had actually brought up the issue or opened the door of the whole issue of seniority and all things being equal. We spent a lot of time on that at the last hearing. I didn't bring it up. The County brought it up. So, certainly, we're entitled to pursue that. The second thing isagain, we'reI'm going back to the list of —excuse me. I'm going back to the issue of recruitment and talk about where people were on the list in terms of recruitment. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, let's go back to that, Ms. Tavares. Page 10 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory. Mr. Kaye and three other individuals were clearly at the top of the list and were promoted as a result of the recruitment. Any placement of anybody else on that list, is irrelevant for this matter. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. When you talk about the list, what list are you referring to? The list —the referral list? MS. TAVARES: That's what he's asking about. CHR. CABANAS: The referral list? MR. HONG: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So MS. TAVARES: I'm sorry, not the referral list of eligible applicants. He's asking about the results CHR. CABANAS: The results? MS. TAVARES: —yes. CHR. CABANAS: The tallying of the scores from the selection process. MS. TAVARES: That's my understanding. CHR. CABANAS: That's different. MR. HONG: The ranking. CHR. CABANAS: The ranking from the selection process. Okay. That is totally different from the list that was referred from HR to the Hawai `i Fire Department. You're concerned about the ranking after the interview was done and I don't know if there was anything else comprisedso, Ms. Tavares, was there anything else with the selection process besides an interview? MS. TAVARES: To my knowledge, there was not, and I believe CHR. CABANAS: It was just the interview? MS. TAVARES: Correct. MALE SPEAKER: Should I answer? CHR. CABANAS: Well, are you asking Assisting Fire Chief Okinaka? Page 11 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: I can to confirm, but I wasI am of —have the information that it was just the interview process. And Assistant Chief Okinaka can verify that, if I am mis-stating the facts of what happened here. MR. OKINAKA: That is correct. It was just an interview for the (inaudible). CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. HONG: So, Chief, who ranked all the individuals who applied for the position? MR. OKINAKA: I did. MR. HONG: And so, in terms of ranking, my client was the first on that list of ranksI mean, in terms of ranking of the candidates? MR. OKINAKA: Like I said, at this point I cannot verify. I don't have the exact ranking before me, so I don't want to mis-state. But, like I said early, he was one of the top candidates. MR. HONG: Okay. And then, in terms of that ranking, where did the grievant come in? MS. TAVARES: Again, confidentiality goes —he's looking for the name of the person who filed the grievance. MR. HONG: I'm not. I'm not. I don't care what his name is. I just want to know where he was on the —on that ranking on that list of ranking of eligibles. MS. TAVARES: Below Number four. Obviously, he was below Number 4. CHR. CABANAS: Number 4 MR. HONG: Well, Ms. Tavares is not under oath and we know that it's a list of at least ten to 14 people —maybe even 16 people —and my question is, are we talking about the 14'h or the 16'h person or the I Oh person? That's all I want to know. Where did he end up? I mean, the Chief would say the bottom third? The bottom half? That's fine. If he doesn't recall —`cause he doesn't recall, obviously, in terms of where my client ranked on the list —one of the top guys, but. CHR. CABANAS: I think you need to backtrack a little bit. Because one of the exhibits shows the interview questions. So, where were you going to go with that? MR. HONG: I wasn't going to go with the interview questions. I just wanted to know where the grievant was on the list to the best of the Chief's recollection. CHR. CABANAS: Well, why are the interview questions here as an exhibit? Page 12 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: That's a question for the County. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Tavares? MS. TAVARES: I provided that because it was part of the recruitment packet that was provided for this matter. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Because normally you submit —okay. You submitted the —and it's "Exhibit B" MS. TAVARES: "A"I'm sorry. CHR. CABANAS: No, it's `B." You submitted the interview questions and the first page of the "Exhibit B" shows a total points available is 100 points. But where you're going with all of this there's no total, there's no final sheet of the ranking. It's not an exhibit. So, I was wondering why the interview questions are here. It's an open hearing, Fire Department cannot —should not use these questions again because now it's in an open hearing. And so, it gives us part of the picture with the interview questions, but it doesn't give us the final picture of the total ranking and the names redacted, so that we don't see the names and see the ranking. That's why Ted is asking that question. So, something is missing here. MS. TAVARES: I respectfully disagree. He's asking the ranking because he wants to identify the person who filed the grievance that's why he's asking the question. CHR. CABANAS: Yeah, well, we can't do that. We can't identify the person so maybe you need to re -word your question, Mr. Hong. MR. HONG: In terms of the grievant, did that grievant come —did that grievant, was he the last person on the —on that ranked list? MR. OKINAKA: To my knowledge —no. MR. HONG: Okay. Do you recall whether or not —well, where did he fall in the rank? MS. TAVARES: I'm going to object. And just ask that he move on. CHR. CABANAS: I think you need to move on, Mr. Hong, because at this point, Mr. Kaye was promoted. He was promoted along with other individuals to the designated position numbers. I think there's other questions that can be asked. MR. HONG: All right. The County brought up the issues through the HR Director that the one of the issues in the grievance was the seniority portion —or the seniority clause talking about how if all things are equal, seniority would be considered. Was that something that you discussed with HR? Page 13 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: I specifically did not discuss with DHRno. MR. HONG: Who did? MR. OKINAKA: I think it was MR. HONG: If anyone. MR. OKINAKA: —one of —either the Fire Chief or the Deputy Fire Chief. They were in communications with Department of Human Resources. MR. HONG: And what, if anything, were you told about those communications? MR. OKINAKA: Gosh, not much of anything. It wasn't anything that stands out. The one thing that did come back to me was something about 5%. MR. HONG: I mean, 5% in relation to what? MR. OKINAKA: The final score or the ranking, `cause yeah, the score, the actual score. MR. HONG: Could you explain that to us? MR. OKINAKA: So, when we rank our candidates after the entire assessment, they all have scores. They're scored and then the highest score is the top rank, the lowest score is the bottom rank. So, with the way it was presented to me, is the way the language in the CBA is if all things are relatively equal, seniority shall prevail or something to that effect. That's the only information that we had or, at least, I had, when I conducted the interview and finalized the scoring and ranking. Upon the grievance process and when it came to our to the department, back from HGEA and then the inquiries that the Chief went back and forth with, with DHR. It was MALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible.) CHR. CABANAS: Jim, I think you need to mute your system. We can hear you. Okay. MR. HALVORSON: Yeah, that wasn't me. That was one of my colleagues out in the hallway. CHR. CABANAS: Oh, okay. MR. HALVORSON: But I'm going to mute it just for that purpose anyway. Page 14 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Yes, okay, thanks. Okay, please proceed, Darwin. MR. OKINAKA: Okay. So, going back to that —once the communication going back and forth relating to that "relatively equal" the information came back to our office that "relatively equal" should be considered to 5% of a score —within 5%. And that's where we should attribute that percentage. And if someone is more senior, that 5% will bring them up in ranking, then they would get —they should have preference, I guess, over —on ranking. MR. HONG: Did you recalculate the ranking based on that 5%? MR. OKINAKA: We did it, just to test it —but didn't complete it or utilize that for the final ranking, `cause this all happened after the promotions were done, right. We completed our recruitment assessment, got the scores, did the promotions, and upon the grievant coming in the grievance coming in, that's when we went back and looked at all of this, and we provided that information, at that point. So, it was already completed and the 5%—it was —we didn't have that information in our hands, at the moment when I completed the ranking. MR. HONG: Would it be fair to say that even with the 5%, the grievant didn't outrank Jonah? MS. TAVARES: Objection. Same objection as before. This is going into the merits of the grievance and it is not appropriate for this hearing. MR. HONG: The merits of the grievance no, he's talking about doing the ranking that he redid the ranking based on what HR told him to do or adjust —so, my point being, is that even after they did the rank the recalculation —Jonah was still Number one on the list or, if not, Number one —certainly ahead of the grievant. So, that's it. That's my question. MS. TAVARES: Again, this is going into the substance of the grievance. That's what he's asking for. That's the bottom line. The remedy was reached and how that remedy was reached and the details of the grievance, are not appropriate before this Board. CHR. CABANAS: Well, I think when you submitted the "Exhibit B" it raised —it's like you're putting information out there that leads to other questions. And then, the next thing should have been, "Well, where is the final ranking sheet with all of the applicants and their scores and redact the names" because this is, kind of, mis-leading. You're including their interview questions. What's the purpose of it? And the scoring for each question. You see, this is your exhibit, right? MS. TAVARES: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, what was the purpose of this exhibit? Page 15 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: As I previously explained, I provided the recruitment and the information packet that was provided to me from DHR for this recruitment. CHR. CABANAS: I understand that, Ms. Tavares, but when you prepare an appeal MS. TAVARES: We're not the ones who appealed this —Mr. Hong is. CHR. CABANAS: I know, but you're defending the appeal. When you prepare the packet, even if it came from HR, that would have been a logical question —"What's the purpose of this exhibit" —and then not attach the final ranking because we have questions now. He has questions. I mean, to be fair to both sides, once you submit this, Ieven I have more questions. What was the purpose of this? They can't use these questions now. It's a public open hearing. So, the logical thing would have been to ask HR why do you —why are you submitting this packet, so I can represent you properly. You see. It leads to other questions, otherwise, don't submit it. MS. TAVARES: Understood. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, having said all that —you have to remember now that Mr. Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka is on the panel. Could —explain the process to the Board they tally up their scores and then what happens? MS. TAVARES: I'm not the one asking the questions, right now, though. CHR. CABANAS: Mr. Hong, you going to stop or you have other questions? MR. HONG: No, I have other questions. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. HONG: So, explain the process to us —after you do the interview, what do you do? MR. OKINAKA: After we complete the interviews, we go back and tally the scores up, and rank each candidate from top to bottom. MR. HONG: Okay. And then what happens next? MR. OKINAKA: And we make the selection of —for the promotion based on the top the candidates. MR. HONG: Do you have to bring in HR the HR Department in terms of what you're going to do and what you are doing with respect to DHR or MR. OKINAKA: Our internal HR, sorry. Page 16 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: DHR? MR. OKINAKA: No. MR. HONG: Okay. MR. OKINAKA: I mean, it eventually goes to them when the process the promotion because they handle all the personnel paperwork, but as far as making a final decision, that's all internal. MR. HONG: So, when Jonah was promoted to the position, there's that Personnel Action Form back in the day it was, like, half-a-pageI think it was pink or —was that another color. But, anyway, that would reflect the promotion, the change in SR rating, the change in pay, right —you remember those? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. I think it's the Form 13 possibly CHR. CABANAS: Form 13. MR. OKINAKA: Yeah. It's our HR process that paperwork. I don't —we don't —me, specifically, don't handle that. I just do the recruitment, scoring, and present the names to our HR, and they handle all the processing. MR. HONG: So, that paperwork from your department —'cause my understanding if it's still correct in terms of the process that form goes to DHR, right? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: And the Director has to sign it or the Director's representative has to sign it. MR. OKINAKA: I believe so —yes. MR. HONG: And when that happened, how long was it before you were notified that, "Oh, there was a problem." MR. OKINAKA: So, we were notified of the grievance after we posted the promotion. Once we post the promotion, I guess, candidates were not happy, so they'll grieve. It happens. MR. HONG: So —but my client was already working on the job for about, what —three months before he was put back to his WSO 11 position? MR. OKINAKA: A few months yeah, I don't know the exact timeframe but —yes, a few months at least. Yeah. MR. HONG: And then, in terms of —so you said you did all the scoring? Page 17 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: And you did the ranking? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: Did you have to show it to anybody to get their approval, like, the Chief? MR. OKINAKA: I usually present that ranking to the Chief for review. MR. HONG: Does he sign off on it or initial it or anything? MR. OKINAKA: No, just verify he saw MR. HONG: Okay. MR. OKINAKA: based on, yeah, what I provide. MR. HONG: Okay. And did he —to your recollection —did he verify the ranking? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: And in terms of the ranking, where —well, let me rephrase that. The grievant —let me rephrase it —so you had testified earlier you had done a recalculation based on that 5% that the Department of Human Resources said was the proper way to do it? MR. OKINAKA: They didI just wanted to just a point of correction, `cause you mentioned that we were directed to do that. We weren't directed to do that, but the —like I said, it was just the communications that went back and forth with the Chiefs and DHR when they talked about that. That's after the grievance. They said that there's this —usually there's this 5% that they considerso, once I heard that, I just tallied it up, just for my ownI wasn't directed to do so, I just did it just to see how the rankings would have played out, if we considered that. MR. HONG: And did, in your recalculation, Jonah was still on top? MR. OKINAKA: He wasn't going to be affectedI can say that much. I'm not sure exactly where he was, but he wasn't affected. MR. HONG: So, he would still be one of the four guys? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. Page 18 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: Do you know where the grievant fell with the 5%? I asked do you know where the grievant fell with the 5%? MR. OKINAKA: No, I don't —not right off the top of my headI don't. MR. HONG: All right. In terms of the ranking, the original ranking that you went through. Would it be fair to say that the grievant was closer in terms of the ranking to that last person, who got the position the fourth person who got the positioner versus Jonah? MR. OKINAKA: I'm just having a little challenge, `cause I'm not sure if it was one or two people that grieved. MR. HONG: Okay, so MR. OKINAKA: So, I cannot —I'm not too sure on the detail. MR. HONG: Sure. So whether it's one or two, right, my question is —isn't it true that with respect to wherever these grievwhoever the grievants were, that their score, their ranking, would have been closer to the fourth person selected for the WSO III position, than to Jonah? MS. TAVARES: Objection. Again, this goes into the details of the grievance and, ultimately, you cannot place one persons' right to file a grievance over another's based on their ranking. You can't say that Number 10 doesn't qualify as much as Number 1 to file a grievance. And so, it's irrelevant to these proceedings where the one or more grievants ended up on the first list or on any list, because it's irrelevant to these proceedings. Assistant Chief Okinaka testified that Mr. Kaye would not have been impacted. There's your answer. CHR. CABANAS: The focus of the appealI'm looking at the appeal form, is not the selection process. The focus of the appeal is the cancellation of the recruitment and the demotion —so called demotion reversed. That was the remedy. He wants to remain in his current WSO III position and have the demotion reversed. It's not about the selection process. MR. HONG: No, I agree. I understand that. And we are, actually, talking about the recruitment process. CHR. CABANAS: Correct. The recruitment process, when does that end. MR. HONG: Well, that was going to be my CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, please stay within the confines of that. MR. HONG: Okay. So, Chief, when does the recruitment process end based on your training and experience? Page 19 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: The recruitment process ends after we tally the scoring —complete the promotion that's the recruitment process. That list is still eligible for promotions, but the recruitment process has ended. MR. HONG: So, did you see the letter fromoh, here it is the Department of Human Resources, to my client, dated September 9 h, 2024? MR. OKINAKA: I don't believe I did. I'm not sure. MR. HONG: That would be our "Exhibit 2" to the appeal. MR. OKINAKA: No, I did not receive a copy of this to my knowledge. MR. HONG: So, let me suggest this. I'm going to ask you questions based on this document, so if you could just read it over to yourself silently and when you're done, let me know. I'm just going to have a couple of questions. CHR. CABANAS: Mr. Hong, are you referring to the September 9, 2024, letter? MR. HONG: Yes. Our "Exhibit 2" to the appeal. CHR. CABANAS: Right. Okay. MR. OKINAKA: Okay, I read it. MR. HONG: Thanks. So, I'm looking at "Exhibit 2" September 9 h, 2024, letter to my client from Ms. Tokihiro. Your testimony is you never saw this letter before? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: Do you recall having a meeting with my client where you had talked to someone from the department told him and others that they were being demoted? MR. OKINAKA: I know I met with JonahI cannot recall exactly what we discussed, but it was pertaining to this situation, yeah, what demotion, what —at the time, we consider was a demotion but was actually, officially, a reinstatement, I guess. MR. HONG: Okay. So, you told him he was going to be demoted and sent back to the WSO MR. OKINAKA: I did not I think DHR provided a letter. I didn't officially provide that statement to him. MR. HONG: And the department did publish some kind of a reinstatement list, right, that people got reinstated to their positionsWSO II —like my client. Page 20 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: It's on the previous page, "Exhibit I." MR. OKINAKA: Yeah, it's a Personnel Order I believe. Is that what you're referring? MR. HONG: (Inaudible.) MR. OKINAKA: Our Personnel Order —correct. That's our Personnel Orders that anytime there's personnel movements from one position to another for promotions or whatever just even transfers —an Order, like this, is issued. MR. HONG: And when you say it's "issued" that's department -wide? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. MR. HONG: Is it posted at the stations? MR. OKINAKA: I'm not sure if they post it at the station anymore because we utilize email a lot, so they may not post it. But it could very well get posted. MR. HONG: Okay. So, when you say "emailed" who is it emailed to? All the department? MR. OKINAKA: Entire department. MR. HONG: The entire department. MR. OKINAKA: The entire department. MR. HONG: So, everybody that participated in the recruitment knew when you post —when that memo came out, that Order came out —that my client was now pushed back down to WSO II? MR. OKINAKA: They would know. The one caveat is with Ocean Safety, because of the makeup of the Ocean Safety Division and the Water Safety Officers work in Towers they don't have computers to be able to check emails—and not all of them have email accounts. So, anytime we have communications like these that is distributed to the department, it is the duties of the captains and/or lieutenants who have access to computers, to print and notify each employee. But, yes, every employee should have access to this information. MR. HONG: Do you know whether or not my client was being ridiculed or humiliated by his co -workers — MS. TAVARES: I'm going to object to this. MR. HONG: —about his demotion? Page 21 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: I'm going to object to this line of questioning asI understand and I was here for Mr. Kaye's testimony, but this goes beyond what the jurisdiction of MAB is here to determine with regards to the recruitment. Those are internI'm just going to object. It's irrelevant. CHR. CABANAS: Well, anytime a internal recruitment or even an open recruitment is cancelled, persons have questions as to why it's cancelled. MS. TAVARES: Questions but feelings about what happened and interpretations or comments, are not questions about what happened. He's asking about feelings. CHR. CABANAS: Well, it's the impact of the action, yeah. And it's important that employees feel that they're valued and appreciated —and that the correct information be presented. The question I have here is, well —Mr. Hong, you continue. You continue. MR. HONG: You understood my question? MR. OKINAKA: I believe you was asking if I knew that he was being ridiculed based on these Orders. Is that correct? MR. HONG: Yeah, if his co-workers were giving him grief because of the Or MR. OKINAKA: I'm not sure and I cannot recall if that was the case or if it was brought to my attention. Sorry. MR. HONG: Okay. So, going back to the letter September 9 h, 2024, I'm looking at the second paragraph that begins, in the first sentence, "The reinstatement action... "do you see that? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: And it goes down to, "...to cancel the Water Safety Officer III recruitment... do you see that? It's the second sensecond line of that sentence. MR. OKINAKA: Yes, I see it. MR. HONG: So, is it your testimony that the department cancelled the recruitment? MR. OKINAKA: Our department didn't. MR. HONG: And that would be the Human Resources — MR. OKINAKA: Department of Human Resources cancelled it. Correct. MR. HONG: And as far as you're concerned, the recruitment was finished, right? Page 22 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: You had testified on direct, that you're still adjusting your policies and procedures with HR concerning this incident or the result of the grievance? MS. TAVARES: He testified that he is working with HGEA to clarify the terms. MR. HONG: No. He said bothHGEA and HR. MR. OKINAKA: Yeah, I did say both. Sorry. But, yeah, I mean, it was aas a result of this, we're adjusting our recruitment policies and procedures. MR. HONG: Fair to say you're adjusting the minimum qualifications for the positiona part of it? MR. OKINAKA: Not minimum qualifications. No. MR. HONG: Then what are you —well, let me ask this question. Part of the recruitment for Jonah's position, he was —in terms of his ranking —he was ranked —he was given that rank because one of the aspects of it was he had a bachelor's degree? MR. OKINAKA: No. MR. HONG: That didn't count at all? MR. OKINAKA: Not at the time. No. MR. HONG: Okay. What about his certificate as a EMT? MR. OKINAKA: No. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, we're going into the selection process, again. MR. HONG: Well, let me ask this question. In terms of this recruitment, the result of the recruitment, are you guys basically (inaudible) down the MQ's? MR. OKINAKA: When? MR. HONG: For this WSO position? MR. OKINAKA: What —can you clarify that (inaudible) it down after it or before —after? MR. HONG: I'm not sure. Page 23 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: After? MR. HONG: As a result of the grievance, are you guys basically (inaudible) down the MQ's? MR. OKINAKA: No, we're enhancing it, actually. MR. HONG: Enhancing it by including what 5% of seniority? CHR. CABANAS: Okay, we're not at that stage, yet, because they —as Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka said, they have ongoing negotiations with HGEA and DHR. So, nothing is finalized. We're talking about "if's" and we shouldn't be doing that. MR. HONG: Okay, I understand that. Let me move on to a different question. So, Chief, you had said, you don't know when those negotiations, those discussions between HGEA and HR are going to complete be completed? MR. OKINAKA: So, we recently had a meeting with HGEA and, subsequently, DHR regarding the procedures. We just need the formal the Chief is compiling the information that we got and creating the formal document to send back for final approval, basically. MR. HONG: So, it's sitting on his desk? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: Okay. How long has it been on his desk? CHR. CABANAS: Okay, Mr. Hong, I think you're going a little too far out. MR. HONG: Let me rephrase that. So, if the Chief completes those changes, how quickly would the department be able to begin the recruitment process again? MR. OKINAKA: Once it's all improved —once it's all approved, then we will initiate the process the recruitment process for all our vacancies, including Ocean Safety. MR. HONG: But you don't know when that's going to happen? MR. OKINAKA: I don't have an exact timeframeno. MR. HONG: Okay. Based on the changes that were made, wasn't it fair to say that my client would be overqualified? MR. OKINAKA: I cannot say. CHR. CABANAS: No, Mr. Hong, that's taking it far out again. Page 24 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: All right. You talked about derogatory material in my client's personnel file. When was the last time you took a look at my clients personnel file? MR. OKINAKA: Maybe a couple of weeks ago. MR. HONG: Okay. Have there any been —have there been any performance issues regarding my client? MR. OKINAKA: Not to my knowledge. No. MR. HONG: Any discipline against my client? MR. OKINAKA: Not to my knowledge. No. MR. HONG: I'm going to have to ask this question, for the record, and I apologize in advance. In your opinion, is the Fire Department discriminating against Jonah because of his Caucasian ancestry. MR. OKINAKA: Definitely, not. CHR. CABANAS: Mr. Hong, the appeal is not about discrimination. MR. HONG: I understand that. Iswhether the department in the recruitment process violated any laws, rules, regulations, and procedures. Discrimination is certainly an anti —one of the rules, polices, and laws that they shouldn't be violating in the recruitment process. And I asked the question, I made the record. I'm not going to be following -up on that. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Because just note that Mr. Kaye was selected for the WSO III. The recruitment was cancelled. MR. HONG: Right. CHR. CABANAS: So, we need to stick to that. Okay, any more questions? MR. HONG: No, I have no further questions. Thank you, Chief. MR. OKINAKA: You're welcome. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, Ms. Tavares, any further questions of the Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka? MS. TAVARES: I do have one follow-up question. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, go ahead. Page 25 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. TAVARES: How soon do you want these recruitments to go out. MR. HONG: I object. She can't have it both ways. I asked the question, there's an objection how soon —it's irre—not only MS. TAVARES: No. MR. HONG: is it relevant, it's vague and it's speculative. MS. TAVARES: You asked him about his opinion on a lot of things and I can ask him —how soon does he want this recruitment to start? MR. HONG: Does it matter what the Chief —the Assistant Chief wants. He testified it's on the Chief's desk and he can't do anything until the Chief finalizes and signs it. So, it's speculative. MS. TAVARES: It's not speculative if I'm asking what the Chief —what he wants. Yes, maybe he doesn't have the power but I think it's important for this Board to know what his position is with regards to filling these vacancies. CHR. CABANAS: Well, you could ask the question in a, maybe, a little different way? What are —what is the department's plans in having another recruitment. There is a process that they have to go through. What is that process? MS. TAVARES: I'll just not ask any further questions. CHR. CABANAS: I believe it was stated at the January meeting that —go back to your minutes, to your notes, that in order for the department to do this particular recruitment that Mr. Kaye was hired for, they had a blanket approval to fill all WSO III positions and WSO II positions. And now that it's a new calendar year, they need to get another blanket approval of the Administration. Right? MS. TAVARES: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, that's where we're at. You can ask? MS. TAVARES: I'm not going to ask any more questions CHR. CABANAS: Further? MS. TAVARES: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Mr. Hong? Page 26 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HONG: Since she withdrew the question, there's no follow-up questions I can ask. So CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Well, I think the Board has questions. So, I'm going to take it to our Vice -Chair first, Ms. Bond, do you have any questions to ask of the Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka? MS. BOND: Just a general question that I have about —do you the idea's that you take the top candidates you don't ever skip over them for somebody down below? You take the top four or the top whatever that's you have positions for? MR. OKINAKA: Correct, that we hold the assessment and the recruitment and the top candidates is the preferred candidates —and we, typically, promote — MS. BOND: Okay. So, would never —you would never, like, go down to Number 7 or something for some reason? MR. OKINAKA: I guess I cannot say "never" but we have, historically, not done that —at least I haven't. MS. BOND: Okay. It's generally the top MR. OKINAKA: Generally, correct. MS. BOND: of the number of positions? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MS. BOND: Okay, thank you. MR. OKINAKA: You're welcome. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Ms. Bond. Ms. Mathews, any questions? MS. MATHEWS: I do. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, go ahead. MS. MATHEWS: The first one is, you're representing the entire department, and I'm curious as to why you don't have his file with you? I would think if you were answering question whenever I have appeared in court, I've taken every document they could ever have any bearing on it —and you came in without those And I'm just curious as to why? MR. OKINAKA: I was never directed to do so. I never know this was courtI'm sorry. Page 27 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. MATHEWS: Well, it's not court but we have something going on here where it has to do with his employment and the things that have occurred during his employment, and you have no documentation with you that you can refer to. You even ran upstairs to get your glasses so you could have picked up the file at the same time. MR. OKINAKA: I wasn't asked to do so. I'm sorryI don't know if I'm doing anything wrong. I just came to answer — MS. MATHEWS: I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. MR. OKINAKA I just came to answer questions. MS. MATHEWS: I just don't —understanding the logic behind it. MR. OKINAKA: `Cause I never did it before. So, this is my first time, so I don't know what I should bring. MS. MATHEWS: Okay. You also made a comment that the Chief verified your calculations. Does that mean he actually recalculated it or did he just look at it and signed off? MR. OKINAKA: I'm not sure what he did exactly. I cannot answer that question. MS. MATHEWS: Okay. And also is, we were talking about behaviors of other people and you said you didn't know and that kind of thing. Wouldn't those be notated in his file, if there were behaviors or complaints or that kind of thing —wouldn't there be action in his personnel file? MR. OKINAKA: If there's action, yes. MS. MATHEWS: Okay. But the fact that there was a complaint, you don't document that? MR. OKINAKA: What —the complaint for? MS. MATHEWS: You hear —so people are harassing an employee. MR. OKINAKA: I don't have that information, like I said, I cannot verify that. I don't know if it was —harassing him. MS. MATHEWS: But would it have been documented, if you had received that information. MR. OKINAKA: There was an official comdocumentation of that, then yes, we would have that document —correct. But the question was if there was any derogatory information about Jonah in his file. There is none. Page 28 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. MATHEWS: I thought Mr. Hong also questioned whether or not there was any reporting of other harassment or behaviors that would be derogatory towards Jonah? MR. OKINAKA: I'm sorry, I understood the question as if I was aware of anyI forgot the word that he used that's happening based off of —if there was any ridicule that had occurred based on this thing. That's the question I answered. Sorry. MS. MATHEWS: Okay. But in an ordinary course of business, wouldn't those kinds of things be notated somewhere? Either in his file or some master file or something that there was potentially an issue? MR. OKINAKA: If there was yes. I've said I don't know —if I knew he was ridiculed. So, I don't have that information. If I knew, I would have notes of that. Correct, I would have notes of a meeting that I may have held, but I do not recall having any information about Jonah being ridiculed based off of the reinstatement. I do not have that. We've had numerous conversations for various reasons. I don't recall anything about him being ridiculed after the reinstatement. I'm sorry, I just don't have that. MS. MATHEWS: Okay. And those conversations that you've had, you documented all those? MR. OKINAKA: I have notes of conversations that he and I MS. MATHEWS: And those would in the file that's not with you, correct? MR. OKINAKA: Possibly. Yeah MS. MATHEWS: Okay, thank you. MR. OKINAKA: I mean, it wouldn't be in his personnel file. That's just simple meeting notes that he and I may have had. CHR. CABANAS: Other questions? Ms. Mathews? No? Other questions, Ms. Bond? Okay, I have questions, but I'll be last. Mr. Halvorson, do you have other quedo you have questions for the Assistant Fire Chief? MR. HALVORSON: No, I do not. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Ms. Tavares, you have your light on. Are you you want to you have —okay. Page 29 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 Okay, so I'm the anchor, so I'll ask some questions, if you don't mind. Okay. So, Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka, does your department have existing procedures on the interview and selection process? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Do those procedures include any statement where the scores are relatively close that relatively equal shall apply to determine seniority, especially if it's an internal recruitment? MR. OKINAKA: To my knowledge, I have never seen or heard of that language outside of the Bargaining Unit 14 CBAis what we're using for Bargaining Unit 15 because HGEA do not provide that (inaudible). That's the only place I have ever seen or heard of that language. So, it's not in our procedures. CHR. CABANAS: You haven't seen any procedures on the interview and selection process for your department? MR. OKINAKA: No, the Chief has it and that theyI have never to be honest, I have never looked at that entire document. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Were you the Chair for the interview and selection process? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, that's why you tallied up the scores? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. And when you glanced at the scores, you —did you think any of the scores were really close as far as you can recollect? MR. OKINAKA: Possibly. I guess, it depends what "really close" is. CHR. CABANAS: Right. Okay. Because most departments have that —in fact, all departments should have that statement in their procedures. I know that for a fact. They should have it, when I was working, but I'm retired six years. Did —after you tallied the scores, you provided the recommendation from the Panel to the Fire Chief? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. Page 30 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Now, Personnel Order 2024-034, "Exhibit 1"—it's the second to the last page of "Exhibit L" It says it's "AMENDED." Now, anytime something is amended, we would like to see what was amended "Exhibit L" MR. OKINAKA: I cannot find that. CHR. CABANAS: Glynis, can you help him? See at the top —it's after the date. It says, "PERSONNEL ORDER NO. 2024-034 **AMENDED* *"—and then, it's supposed to be signed by Kazuo S. K. L. Todd. What does "P.P." and whose signature is that? MR. OKINAKA: You're asking me? CHR. CABANAS: Yes. MR. OKINAKA: I'm not sure what "P.P." means that is what our previous Deputy Chief used to use —and that's his signature. CHR. CABANAS: Oh, okay. MR. OKINAKA: Eric Moeller. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, so he's signing for the Fire Chief, as the Deputy. MR. OKINAKA: Correct. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Now, do you know what was amended, just by looking at this? MR. OKINAKA: No, I don't. CHR. CABANAS: Yeah, because that kind of leaves us in the dark here. What was amended when this was sent out because it says, "Water Safety Officer Reinstatements Effective September 1, 2024"I'm assuming this went out, as you stated, to the Ocean Safety Captains and Lieutenants —correct? MR. OKINAKA: It went out to the entire department. Yes. CHR. CABANAS: To the entire department and for the Ocean Safety, the Captains and Lieutenants have computers and they would have sent it out to the WSO's the beach lifeguards. MR. OKINAKA: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Now, this says "reinstatements" —it doesn't say "demotion." MR. OKINAKA: Correct. Page 31 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Right. And if you knew that Mr. Kaye was being ridiculed —if it came to your attention, what would you do? MR. OKINAKA: We'd start off with counseling, with —identify who was ridiculing those people that is being accused of ridiculing him, and speak with them. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, tell them to stop, right? MR. OKINAKA: Definitely, yeah to stop that— CHR. CABANAS: Yeah. MR. OKINAKA: —and then if it has to go farther, then it'll go farther. Correct. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. Now, did anything go out to the department employees that said Mr. Kaye and the others were demoted? MR. OKINAKA: Not to my knowledge. CHR. CABANAS: Yeah, because this Personnel Order says "reinstatement" so was the first one "demotion?" But you don't know that, right? MR. OKINAKA: No, I don't. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. Okay. And this recruitment was an internal recruitment? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: Can you explain what an internal recruitment means? MR. OKINAKA: To my knowledge it's a recruitment for personnel in your department. CHR. CABANAS: Personnel who have civil service status, right? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't know to that extent language because our HR manages all of that— CHR. CABANAS: Right. MR. OKINAKA: I just handed the names and CHR. CABANAS: So, it's an internal recruitment for employees within the Hawaii Fire Department that has civil service status, and to have civil service status you have to complete a six-month probationary period. Page 32 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. OKINAKA: For Ocean Safety, correct. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. OKINAKA: You're welcome. CHR. CABANAS: I don't have any other questions. Does anyone else? Mr. Hong? MR. HONG: In terms of the process, to become from probation to permanent, one of the requirements is that to become permanent they have to the department has to do a Job Performance Evaluation or MR. OKINAKA: Yes. Personnel Action report or —yeah, performance. But we call it a "PAR" —sorry. MR. HONG: Yes. MR. OKINAKA: Three-month and six-month. MR. HONG: Performance Appraisal Report. MR. OKINAKA: Yeah, correct. MR. HONG: He never —my client never got one even though he had been on the job for three months, right? MR. OKINAKA: I cannot recall. Sorry. MR. HONG: Thank you. Oh, did someone —to your knowledge —`cause I know you weren't well —back in August 29 h, 2024, you were still the Assistant Chief, right? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HONG: So, in terms of "Exhibit 1" the Personnel Order that says, "Amended" there's the word "Reinstatements" but —well, let me rephrase the question. Did someone advise the department to use the word "reinstatements" versus "demotion?" MR. OKINAKA: I cannot answer that question that's between DHR and our HR. MR. HONG: Thank you. Nothing further. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Ms. Tavares? MS. TAVARES: I have no questions. Page 33 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. OKINAKA: Ms. Cabanas, can I kind of clarify a statement that I made earlier? CHR. CABANAS: Sure, go ahead. MR. OKINAKA: It's regarding the recruitment and our policies and procedures. Because I was referring to —for thisI just want to clarify that I have access to that document and Iso, but I just did not review it for this recruitment, in its entirety, to identify if that language was in there. CHR. CABANAS: Which document are you referring to? MR. OKINAKA: Our recruitment policies and procedures that you had questions on. CHR. CABANAS: Oh, the procedures for your department? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. So, I do have access and I have the document, I just did not use that or I cannot verify if that language is in that. I just wanted to make sure that —kind of, sounded like I don't I didn't even see that document at all and that's not correct. That's the document we're, kind of, we're actually working on right now to revise for the —our recruitments. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. Okay. Anything else? MR. HONG: Nothing further of the Chief. Thank you. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. MR. HALVORSON: I have a question. I have a follow-up question. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, go ahead. MR. HALVORSON: You made some reference to our HR. I assumed that the Hawaii Fire Department has its own human resources personnel attached to it? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HALVORSON: Do you know how many of them you have? MR. OKINAKA: How many staff in our HR depart —section? MR. HALVORSON: Yeah. MR. OKINAKA: Currently, we have two. Page 34 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HALVORSON: And they're the ones that work with the Department of Human Resources on this sort of thing, right? MR. OKINAKA: Correct —on processing the paperwork. Yes. MR. HALVORSON: Right. So, and you rely upon your own people to (inaudible) with the Department of Human Resources? MR. OKINAKA: Yes. MR. HALVORSON: Okay. That's all I had. I just wanted to clarify that. MS. MATHEWS: I have one quick question? Do you use rubber stamps or digital signatures because it looks to me, like, where that "P.P." isis that somebody else used that stamp because that's what we used to do in our office. `Cause that's how you indicated it's somebody besides ourself signed it, on behalf of that person. So, and since it's Chief Todd, I can imagine him needing to have a stamp so he's not signing something that seems routine. MR. OKINAKA: So, in certain circumstances, yes MS. MATHEWS: Okay. MR. OKINAKA: there is there's rubber stamping. But this one, is this is a wet signature, just by looking at the way the "P.P." is, that's how our Deputy Chief used to sign for Chief Todd in all of his documents. So, I can verify that this one here is not a rubber stamp because he doesn't have "P.P." on a rubber stamp. MS. MATHEWS: And that signature is not Chief Todd's —it's actually the Deputy MR. OKINAKA: Yes, yes. MS. MATHEWS: Got it. Thank you. CHR. CABANAS: And could you state at the time who that Deputy Fire Chief was, `cause it's not the current Fire Chief? MR. OKINAKA: Correct. At that time, this was Deputy Chief Eric Moeller, at the time. We have a new Deputy Chief now. Page 35 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. The Director of Human Resources is not here, but I think one important question goes back to cancelling the recruitment because the list could have just existed. And I don't want to go back to that settlement, but it goes back to the agreement that was reached to cancel the recruitment when people had been promoted. The list could have been they could have just —"Okay, we're going to redo the interview and selection process" but why cancel a recruitment when you have a long list of qualified employees in your department? That's the question. But it goes back to the settlement. So, we can't discuss that settlement, it has nothing to do with MAB. And when the list is referred to the Fire Department, all those that qualified Ms. Tavares, is there a ranking as far as you know? Are they just all referred? All those who meet the minimum requirements, are they just all referred? MS. TAVARES: My understanding is, yes. The list of qualified applicants is just referred. CHR. CABANAS: Referred. MS. TAVARES: There's no ranking done by DHR. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. And then no ranking at that point, so they're all qualified, they're all equal at that point the names get referred to the Fire Department, and then Fire Department, you conducted the interview. MR.OKINAKA: Correct. CHR. CABANAS: And after the interview and the scores were tallied, then you rank them? MR.OKINAKA: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: And that's the process? MR. OKINAKA: Yes, that's our process. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. So, if there are no other questions for Assistant Fire Chief Okinaka, I'm going to release him from the questioning. Okay, thank you, Assistant Fire Chief. MR.OKINAKA: (Inaudible.) CHR. CABANAS: As we stated at the last hearing in January, all the exhibits were entered into the record. And so, County are you going to rest your case or do you have any comments to make at this point? MS. TAVARES: The County rests. Page 36 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 CHR. CABANAS: The County rests. Mr. Hong? MR. HONG: Based on the concerns that you identified, and it just struct me that you were correct that it's an open hearing. I mean, I don't know if this a course out of the barn kind of thing probably isI moveI'd stipulate to withdraw County's "Exhibit B" the interview list. But, because it's a public record and was on file, that Joe Blow could walk in between the time we filed the appeal —or I mean, the time the County submitted their exhibits to the present —to kind of look at it but I'mI'd stipulate to withdrawing it, if the County wants that would help. MS. TAVARES: I would be agreeable to that. CHR. CABANAS: I believe it's too late to withdraw because we already saw it at the January meeting. So, it means that the Fire Department should not be using these questions again. They will have to develop new items. MS. TAVARES: And that is, currently, what is being negotiated with HGEA. CHR. CABANAS: To develop new items? Well, I'm sorry, you can't discuss it. But I mean, you brought it up. MS. TAVARES: I mean, not specifically, but as both Director Tokihiro and Assistant Chief Okinaka talked about today, the issue that was raised by the Union is with regards to this relatively equal on the basis of seniority. And I will put on the record that that is not a part of —that's the whole purpose of the grievance because it was not in there. And that is what they are currently sorting through. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. MS. TAVARES: I can't say more. I know that that's as clear as mud but, ultimately, that is what was missing and that is why it went through the grievance process. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. MS. TAVARES: And that is what Director Tokihiro testified to at the last hearing. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. MS. TAVARES: —and it was, again, confirmed by Assistant Chief today. CHR. CABANAS: Mm-hmm. Okay, understood. In all the years that I've worked with the department, they followed the relatively equal of 5%. And I'll just close at that. Page 37 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 Okay. All exhibits have been entered into the record, but I have been reminded that Communication number 24-14.07, received on January 23rd 2024, from Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, on behalf of the Appellant regarding Appellant's Memorandum of Law Concerning Recruitments. So, if you need to look at that really quick. Mr. Hong is stating in this memorandum that the recruitment was cancelled subject to a collective bargaining grievance. Issues involving recruitment are not subject to collective bargaining. (Note: The agenda referenced the date, January 23, 2024; however, the year "2024" was a typographical error and should have been year "2025.") Okay. So, Glynis has advised me, I need a motion to accept and file this particular communication. MS. MATHEWS: So moved. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. A second? MS. BOND: Second. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Any discussion? If not, I'll call —start a rollcall vote with Ms. Bond. MS. BOND: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Mathews. MS. MATHEWS: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Cabanas —aye. Three ayes. Motion carried. Mr. Hong, do you have any closing statements? MR. HONG: I don't have a verbal or oral closing statement, if the Merit Appeals Board would prefer, certainly, we could submit a closing brief, in terms of a written brief, if that would be more helpful. CHR. CABANAS: No, I think a three -minute closing statement would suffice. MR. HONG: Okay. So, again, on behalf of Jonah Kaye and myself, we certainly appreciate your time in this matter and the consideration of this matter. So, there are two issues that I wanted to bring up. One is, a recruitment is a recruitment, is a recruitment. This was the cancellation of a recruitment. Ms. Tokihiro said it in writing, she said it I mean, in writing the letter, September 9 h. She said it when she testified. Yet, in her Page 38 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 testimony and the Assistant Chief's testimony, the recruitment was already done. But they utilized this phrase "recruitment" `cause they can cancel it under the civil service rules as an excuse to get by, from what they should have been doing all along —which is, they've already done it, in terms of the recruitment. They need to change their procedures for the next recruitment. Not all of a sudden drag everybody else down, which brings me to my second point. My second point is, we've been having to basically battle ghosts. And the ghost in this case is the collec this collective bargaining agreement. And my point of, in terms of submitting the memo, is to point out that it's apples —and what I'd like to say is "orangutans" —it's apples and orangutans —not apples and oranges because it's not fruit. It's things that are completely different. You have to look at this —if this is a cancellation of a recruitment based on what someone —Sommer Tokihiro says, then you have to treat it as a recruitment, which we have done —and we've addressed that and we've shown that what they did was wrong. But they keep bringing in this orangutan about collective bargaining grievance and we can't —we know nothing about it. They cited in the September 9 h letter, they tell us, "Oh, we did what we did because of the grievance" —so tell me about the grievance"Well, we can't do that"so, we're hamstrung. When I said, we're handcuffed earlier on, that's what we're doing. I'm battling these ghosts. These shadows. And how —it's really not fair for my client. If you're going to say this is a collective bargaining agreements issue, then we should have battled that — had that battle. But when you sent him a letter saying, "We cancelled your recruitment" then that's the ground that we're going to fight it on. Because she had no right, under the civil service laws —excuse me the civil service rules to cancel the recruitment. And if you look at the process, the Chief testified you're supposed to get two performance appraisal reports —one at the three-month part —three-month tenure, and one at the six-month tenure. In this case, he testified and everybody agrees he was there for three months, yet they didn't even give him a performance appraisal report. There's nothing to talk about in terms of his discipline, his performance. If anything, he's probably a stellar employee and, yet they use this excuse of a recruitment to, basically, demote him, and subject him to ridicule by his co-workers. So, we ask the Board to grant the appeal, to reinstate him to the prior position, and send a clear message to Human Resources because, not only this case, but the Turner Lyndon Case —stop using the recruitment issue or the recruitment rule as an excuse to do this to County employees good County employees. Thank you. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hong. Ms. Tavares, your turn. MS. TAVARES: Thank you. The situation really sucks. And it sucks because as I said when we were here two weeks ago, Mr. Kaye, by no fault of his own, has been put in this situation. Page 39 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 And, quite frankly, it sucks for the department, too, because this was not the way the department wanted this to go. But when you have this "ghost" as Mr. Hong characterizes it, as the "HGEA"—and we're bound by a collective bargaining agreement, with regards to promotions, the department is supposed to consider something that, through the grievance process, was determined that it was left out or at least that was the basis of the grievance and we have a remedy. I don't even know the details of that grievance because that is not an issue that is before the MAB. And I really hate being put in this position because Mr. Kaye didn't do anything wrong. But when you have the Union, essentially, picking a side because they're supposed to be representing every one of their members, and making a decision that HFD violated the CBA because they left out seniority as part of their recruitment process, that —we're stuck with that remedy. This Board cannot order the County to violate another agreement that was reached. And it's unfortunate that we're here. Again, because Mr. Kaye didn't do anything wrong and I really hate being in this position. But it's his Union that brought the grievance, his Union that bucked the Fire Department when they said, "No, our recruitment process was solid and we stand by the decision that we made" —and they continued to battle to insert language that is in Article 13, with regards to promotions, which is exactly what this was. Because the recruitment was for civil service employees of the Hawaii County Fire Department because there was a requirement that you needed to be in a the Water Safety Officer 11 position for a minimum of two years to even be eligible and qualify to apply for this position. Again, Mr. Kaye met all the requirements. Whether he was Number one, two, three, or four on the list, is irrelevant because he qualified and he received the promotion. The County is bound by the CBA and, in this case, unfortunately, the result was not in Mr. Kaye's favor. And I am put in this position where I need to defend what happened. But, again, I'm just going to reiterate, it is not Mr. Kaye's fault that we are here. MR. HONG: Am I allowed a rebuttal because I'm the Appellant —or the Appellant's Representative? CHR. CABANAS: Yes, you can rebut —our procedures allow for it. MR. HONG: All right, so CHR. CABANAS: So, please proceed but remember, keep it short. MR. HONG: All right. So, my rebuttal is that if this was an issue between the collective bargaining agreement language, the HGEA, and the County —`cause it's something that the County didn't want to do. We all know, based on the (inaudible) in the case they could go to Page 40 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 the Hawaii Labor Relations Board and file a Prohibitive Practice Complaint. But they didn't. But they tell you, it's this other things, this ghost that is somehow dictating this case. I am just I have difficulty in this particular case `cause I'm a plain and simple kind of guy they tell me it's they're cancelling the recruitment. There are rules regarding cancelling recruitments and they didn't meet them in this particular case. And no —regardless of the ghost, regardless of the shadows those shadows have no influence on what they said was their basis for taking action against my client, which is cancelling the recruitment. Thank you. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Mr. Hong. This hearing has ended. The Board will now enter into its deliberations in executive session. Can I please have a motion and a second to go into executive session? MS. MATHEWS : So, moved. MS. BOND: Second. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Any discussion? If not, I'll start a rollcall vote with Ms. Bond. MS. BOND: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Mathews. MS. MATHEWS: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Cabanas —aye. Three ayes. Motion carried. The parties will now be excused from the meeting room and we will call you back into the room once our deliberations have ended. And Glynis will be securing the room leaving us with the three Board members, Glynis, and Mr. Halvorson. Thank you, Sherilyn, and thank you, Ted. RECESS: The Chair called for a recess at 10:29 a.m. Page 41 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 RECONVENE: The meeting reconvened at 11:18 a.m. in open session. Communication No. 24-14, Received On September 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of Appellant, Appealing The Following Action By The County Of Hawai`i's Fire Department: Recruitment And Examination; And Communication No. 24-14.01, Received On October 28, 2024, From Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Supplemental Exhibit "3" In Support Of Appellant's Appeal To The Merit Appeals Board Submitted On September 12, 2024; Exhibits "3"; And Communication No. 24-14.02, Received On October 29, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Statement Of No Opposition To The Jurisdiction Of The Merit Appeals Board To Hear This Appeal; And Communication No. 24-14-03, Received On December 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Witness List; And Communication No. 24-14.04, Received On December 12, 2024, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Exhibit List; And Communication No. 24-14.05, Received On December 12, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Witness List; And Communication No. 24-14.06, Received On December 12, 2024, From Appellee, Regarding Appellee's Exhibit List; Exhibits "A" — "D"; and Communication No. 24-14.07, Received On January 23, 2025, From Ted H. S. Hong, Esquire, On Behalf Of The Appellant, Regarding Appellant's Memorandum Of Law Concerning Recruitment (Executive Session: The Merit Appeals Board Anticipates Convening One Or More Executive Meetings Regarding The Above Matter, Pursuant To HRS Sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(2) And 92-5(a)(4), For The Purpose Of 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 Of The Members Present Pursuant To HRS Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting) CHR. CABANAS: Okay, we are back in the open session of the appeal hearing for Mr. Jonah Kaye. It is 11:18 a.m. on January 30'', 2025. Present in the open hearing are three Board members —Ms. Suzi Bond, Ms. Gay Mathews, and Ms. Gabriella Cabanas, along with our Secretary -Reporter Glynis Yamada. We have J Yoshimoto, our Assistant Corporation Counsel; Mr. John Kaye, sitting in; Ms. Sherilyn Tavares, the attorney for the County from the Office of the Corporation Counsel; Ted Hong, Esquire, attorney for Mr. Jonah Kaye; and the Appellant, Jonah Kaye; and Mr. James Halvorson from the Office of the Attorney General, who is our Legal Counsel for the hearing and our deliberations. So, our deliberations have concluded, everyone. And after lengthy discussion and review of what was presented as testimony and exhibits, the three -member Board —and we have quorum the three -member Board have a decision. Page 42 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 And the decision is this: That the WSO III recruitment not be cancelled. And that the list of eligibles from the internal recruitment be valid and exist for the duration as cited in the department's interview and selection procedures. We direct both departments —Department of Human Resources and the Hawaii Fire Department —to take the interview data that they have from the interviews conducted, and properly recalculate and apply the 5% relatively equal, and obtain a new ranking of scores, if there is a new ranking. Now, these are for the four vacancies that were listed in the addendum the Amended Personnel Order number 2024-034. And so, whoever are the top four, the date of promotion would be to the original date of the selection, if it is the same four. And all time served until the date of reinstatement will be credited toward the new probation. This is effective upon receipt of the final Decision and Order, which will —which shall be in February next month. The Hawaii Fire Department shall review and adjust any backpay and fringe benefits for Mr. Kaye and the remaining WSO candidates. May I have a motion? MS. MATHEWS: So moved. MS. BOND: I second. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, both. Any discussion? If not, I'll start a rollcall vote with Ms. Bond. MS. BOND: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Mathews. MS. MATHEWS: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Cabanas —aye. Three ayes. Motion carried. I want to thank the County attorney, Ms. Sherilyn Tavares, and Mr. Hong for the representation on both sides of the case today. And I just want to thank you both, and good luck to you, Mr. Kaye. MR. HONG: Thank you very much. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Halvorson. This concludes our hearing today at 11:22 a.m. MR. HALVORSON: Okay. I'll try to get the Decision and Order out before the 19''. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Thank you so much, Jim. Be safe there with the storm. Page 43 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MR. HALVORSON: Yeah, well, I'm indoors. CHR. CABANAS: Take care. MR. HALVORSON: Yeah, you guys, too. CHR. CABANAS: Okay, thanks a lot. MR. HALVORSON: Okay, bye-bye. CHR. CABANAS: Bye. Okay, moving along on our agenda. We are still in session. Addendum to Agenda (Item 2) CHR. CABANAS: Theres no addendum to the agenda. Statements from the Public (Item 3) CHR. CABANAS: No "Statements from the Public." Approval of Minutes (Item 1) CHR. CABANAS: No "Approval of Minutes." Director's Report (Item 5) CHR. CABANAS: No "Director's Report." Communications (Item 6) CHR. CABANAS: No "Communications.) New Business (Item 7) CHR. CABANAS: No "New Business." Unfinished Business (Item 8) CHR. CABANAS: No "Unfinished Business." Page 44 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 Announcements (Item 9) CHR. CABANAS: Any "Announcements?" Schedule Next Meeting Date (Item 10) The Merit Appeals Board Will Convene Its Next Meeting On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, At 10:00 A.M., At The Hilo Council Chambers, Hawaii County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, First Floor, Room 1401, Hilo, HI 96720 CHR. CABANAS: If not, scheduling the next meeting. May I have a motion to adjourn today's meeting? MS. BOND: So moved. CHR. CABANAS: A second. MS. MATHEWS: Second. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Any discussion? MS. MATHEWS: Could you hold it just a moment? CHR. CABANAS: Sure. MS. MATHEWS: That 9:00 seem to be working for people. I just want to see if that might be, sort of a MS. BOND: Can we do it at 9 instead of 10 on the 25 h? MS. MATHEWS: J? CHR. CABANAS: Are you available at 9:00 on February 25 h? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yes. CHR. CABANAS: We don't have any hearings that day. MS. BOND: Honestly, it's easier to get in at 8:00 (inaudible), I leave my house at 8. CHR. CABANAS: Okay. Sure. It's not a problem. MS. MATHEWS: So, am I hearing nobody objects? Glynis? Page 45 Merit Appeals Board January 30, 2025 MS. YAMADA: It's up to the Board. CHR. CABANAS: I need a motion. MS. MATHEWS: Okay, I move that we move the meeting to —from 10 to 9, at least for this one —and maybe future events. MS. BOND: I second. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Any discussion? Just be mindful that we will have new Board members, probably come March. So, we need to check with them at that time regarding the start-up for the meeting —start-up time. Hopefully, March, but we'll see. Okay, I'll start a rollcall vote with Ms. Bond. MS. BOND: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Mathews. MS. MATHEWS: Aye. CHR. CABANAS: Ms. Cabanas —aye. Three ayes. Motion carried for the next meeting to start at 9 a.m., February 25 h, 2025. Adiournment (Item 11) CHR. CABANAS: May I have a motion to adjourn today's meeting? MS. MATHEWS: So moved. MS. BOND: I second. CHR. CABANAS: Thank you. Any discussion? If not, I'll start a rollcall vote to adjourn today's meeting. MS. BOND: Aye. MS. MATHEWS: Aye. Page 46 Merit Appeals Board January 30,2025 MS. CABANAS: Aye. Three ayes. Motion carried. The meeting is adjourned at 11:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, CIA-) Glynis famada Secretary-Reporter APPROVED: Ai n'l Gabriella M. Cabanas, Chair Merit Appeals Board Page 47